Mumbai Court July 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bharat Oxygen and Acetylene Co. and Another Vs. Union of Indian and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC139; 1987(29)ELT858(Bom)
1. These two petitions are being heard disposed of by this common judgment and order for the reason that they raise common question of law as well as of fact. For the sake of convenience, however, the facts relating to Writ Petition No. 1146 of 1986 are being mentioned to begin with. The petitioners in this writ petition are engaged in the business of importing rough diamonds and exporting cut and polished diamonds. It has been mentioned by the petitioners that under the Import Policy of 1978-79 they were entitled to the grant of an Export House Certificate and consequential benefits against the exports made by them of diamonds. The concept of Export House forms a part of the Import Policy of the year 1978-79. Under this Policy certain registered exporters were registered as Export houses depending upon their performance in the export field. As Export Houses they were granted special facilities to strengthen their negotiating capacity in foreign trade and to build up a more enduring re...
Smt. Bella Cajeton Travasso Vs. Third Wealth-tax Officer and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Bom)223; [1987]166ITR49(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. the petitioner is an individual and is assessed to wealth-tax by the 1st respondent. She owns one-half share in plots No. 374, Mahim, and in the four structures, namely, houses Nos. 14A, 6, 14AA and 6DD, on plot No. 393 at Mahim. She also owns one-fourth share in the building standing on plot No. 330 at Mahim Division. She filed her wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1980-81 showing the valuation of her share in immovable properties. The Valuation of the properties in respect of final plot No. 330 was done by the Rent capitalization Method following the procedure laid down by Circular No. 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The circular was given statutory recognition subsequently by introduction of rule 1BB in the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.2. The Wealth-tax Officer issued a notice under Section 16(2) of the Wealth-tax Act to the petitioner for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and an assessment order under section 16(5) of the Act for the assessment year...
Diamond Shamrock (i) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: 1988(15)LC199(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT393(Bom)
1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the petitioners are entitled to refund of the excise duty paid under mistake of law. Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company and manufacture urea formaldehyde padding solution and cross linking agents. The items manufactured by the petitioners were classified as falling under Tariff Item 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Excise Act'), and the petitioners were paying excise duty and clearing the products from October 1, 1974 to May 24, 1977. The excise duty was paid by the petitioners by debiting the duty amount in the Personal Ledger Account as required under Rule 173F of the Excise Act. Tariff Item 15A of the First Schedule covers' artificial synthetic resins and plastic materials only, and the petitioners' products were really not classifiable under Tariff Item No. 15A. The petitioners accordingly entered into correspondence with the respondents and ulti...
Shyamlal Smarak Arya Shikshan Sanstha Vs. Marathwada University and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1986
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR171; 1987MhLJ439
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner-society Shamlal Smarak Arya Shikshan Sanstha was established in 1950 and it runs several educational institutions within the jurisdiction of the Marathwada University. It is claimed to be a minority institution founded by the Arya Samaj. This claim, however, is challenge by the respondents.2. One of the institution which was founded and managed by the petitioner-Society is the Engineering college at Udgir. This college was started in September, 1983 and during the first academic year of its existence it was allowed to start the first year of the four degree course in engineering. The affiliation in this behalf was granted by the State Government Notification dated January 13,1984, subject to the five conditions of affiliation imposed by the University. Though the result of the first examination of the students who appeared for the said examination through the college of the petitioner -society was quashed on the ground of malpractices, the college was a...
Olympic Oil Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1986
Reported in: [1987]65STC191(Bom)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. As all these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. By these writ petitions the petitioners, who are engaged in the production and manufacture of edible oil, seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the Bombay Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as the said Amendment Act, as being ultra vires of articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.3. Initially the Government of Maharashtra announced a package scheme of incentives in the year 1964 vide Government Resolution dated 25th September, 1964, to encourage and induce entrepreneurs to establish industrial units in undeveloped and underdeveloped areas-outside Bombay-Thane and Pune-Pimpri-Chinchwad regions. By this resolution the State Government agreed to give to new industries, during the initial stages of its production, a cash refund of sales tax paid by the indFustry on the raw...
Goa Foam (Private) Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC326Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order No.MP/7/83 dated 10-5-1983 [F. No. V(15A) 15-4/A/82] passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under : The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of polyurethane Foam falling under Tariff Item 15A(3) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. On 14-10-1981, the Central Excise Officers of Bulsar Division paid a surprise visit to the factory premises of the appellant. They carried out checks of the stock of excisable goods in balance and of the statutory account in form R.G.I. They also examined the other statutory records. The checking was continued on the next day namely on 15-10-1981. They notified fully manufactured and ready to deliver condition of Polyurethane foam and articles thereof contained in 452 bundles weighing 9767 kgs. valued at Rs. 1,02,960 stored in the cooling unit and farming room of the factory which had not bee...
Bakimchandra Laxmikant Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD527(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1980-81.2. The assessee is a partner in Laxmikant & Co., a registered firm. As no return was filed, the ITO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') which was served upon the assessee on 15-10-1981. A return thereupon was filed on 15-12-1982 declaring a loss of Rs. 30,220. The assessment was completed at a net loss of Rs. 66,100 arrived at by reducing the dividend income of Rs. 585 from the assessee's share of loss as assessed in the assessment of the firm.3. Before the ITO, the assessee had contended that the return was originally filed by him under Section 139(1) of the Act, i.e., at the time when the return of the firm was filed. No evidence thereto was produced by the assessee before the ITO. He, therefore, informed the assessee that the return filed on 15-12-1982 was being treated as having been filed in response to the notice under Section 148 and, there...
Pentax Engineering Pvt. Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Oth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC171; 1989(20)LC480(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT510(Bom)
1. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of the engineering goods. The goods are manufactured by the Company out of raw-material purchased by it or on job work basis out of raw-material supplied free of cost by its customers to it. In respect of job work, the Company charges its customers only the labour charges including its manufacturing profit. In exercise of powers conferred by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, the Government of India published Notification No. 105/80 dated June 19, 1980 exempting goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in respect of the first clearances of the goods for home consumption by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories upto a value not exceeding Rs. 30,00,000/- cleared on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The exemption is available subject to the ...
Shaliabi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Bom67; 1986(3)BomCR86; (1987)89BOMLR45
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Is the Maharashtra Act No.26 of 1976 by which the words 'the possession of such land has not been taken under sub-s.(4) of S. 21' in S. 45(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (the principal Act), have been deleted] unenforceable for want of President's assent is the sole point to be determined in this Letters Patent Appeal. Section 45(2) as it stood before this amendment read thus:'The State Government may suo motu or on an application made to it by an aggrieved person at any time call for the record of an enquiry or proceedings under Ss. 17 to 21 (both inclusive) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality and propriety of any enquiry or proceedings (or any part thereto) under those sections and may pass such order thereon as it deems fit after giving the party reasonable opportunity of being heard. Provided that nothing in this section shall entitle the State Government to call for the record of any enquiry or proceedings o...
Wipro Products Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1986
Reported in: 1986(9)ECC331; 1986(25)ELT485(Bom)
1. Wipro Products Limited, the petitioner, is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is a manufacturer of micro processor based systems/mini computers. In order to develop and manufacture these articles the petitioner needs to import designs and drawings and for which permission has been given. The petitioner company placed an order for supply of designs and drawings with Centinel Computer Corporation, United States of America on February 17, 1981. The foreign supplier agreed to supply the drawings and designs on diskettes. The goods were imported by the representative of the petitioner Company by air and reached Bombay Air Port on January 4, 1981. The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry and classified the goods under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 and requested that the goods should be passed free of payment of any duty.The Collector of Customs by order dated February 6, 1981 held that the Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 is not applicable. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Central Boa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »