Mumbai Court August 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.
Gtc Industries Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC33; 1989(23)LC239(Bombay); 1986(25)ELT925(Bom)
1. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office within the jurisdiction of this Court. The second petitioner is the Secretary of the first petitioner company which is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of cigarettes of various kinds and packed in different quantities. The petition states that the petitioners follow a uniform practice and pattern in selling and marketing the cigarettes. This pattern consists of the supply of the cigarettes to the wholesale buyers throughout the country who in turn sell them to the retailers, the latter coming in contact with the ultimate consumers. On the packets containing the cigarettes there is always market a price which is mentioned as the maximum retail price excluding local taxes, if any. The petition describes in some details the distribution system under which the petitioner's products are sold. In paragraph 8 of the petition it has been specifically stated that under the rules ...
Vasant Anant Yeolekar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC675Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Revision Application filed before the Government of India against order No. 117 to 118 dated 5-5-1980 passed by the Gold (Control) Administrator statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as appeals. This Revision Application came to be numbered as GC(T) Bom.A.No. 60 of 1980. As the Gold Control Administrator had disposed of two appeals by a common order, the appellant was directed to restrict the Revision Application filed before the Government of India to one of the appeals or to file a supplementary appeal with a formal application for condonation of delay. The appellant opted to file a supplementary appeal with a condonation application. The supplementary appeal filed by the appellant came to be numbered as GC(T) B 80 of 1986. The formal application of condonation of delay was numbered as COD(B) 113/of 1986.2. The condonation application was allowed since option was given by the Tribunal to file a supplementary appeal in order to comply with the procedural re...
Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC204; 1987(30)ELT898(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a Company engaged in the business of manufacture of chemicals in their factory situated at Ambarnath in Thane District. The petitioners manufacture Phosphoric Acid and the basic raw material for such manufacture is Rock Phosphate. The petitioners import Rock Phosphate from abroad as adequate quantity is not available in the country. From January 1, 1970, the Government of India canalised the import of Rock Phosphate through a Public Sector Agency i.e. Minerals and Metal Trading Corporation of India Limited. The canalizing agency laid down the procedure for import of rock phosphate. On or about April 15, 1972, the Government of India issued notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act to exempt rock phosphate in all forms where imported into India for use in the manufacture of fertilizer, from so much duty of the Customs leviable thereon under the First Schedule of the Indian Tariff Act, 1954 as was in excess of duty leviable on fertilizers falling under Entry...
Bombay Alloy Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC378(Bombay); 1988(38)ELT262(Bom)
1. It is agreed between the counsel that the consignment of alloy steel imported by the petitioners is liable to duty under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1) and not under Tariff Item No. 73.15(2) as assessed by the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities levied assessment on the basis that the imported consignment was of stainless steel. Paragraph 219(2)(v) of Chapter 21 of the Import and Export Policy for April 1982 to March 1983, inter alia, states :'An exception to this is tool/die steel with about 12% chromium and about 2% carbon. This would be covered under the general classification for alloy steel.'Shri Lokur very fairly stated after perusal of the bills of entries and the documents, the imported consignment will satisfy the requirement of the above quoted passage and, therefore, the imported consignment will have to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 73.15(1).2. There is dispute between the parties as to whether auxiliary duty is to be levied on the consignment imported by the peti...
Vemly Hotels Vs. Kuldeep Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: (1995)IIILLJ761Bom
Pendse, J. 1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment as the facts involved in the two petitions and so also the parties are common. For the sake of convenience, instead of referring the parties as petitioners or respondents, it would be advantageous to refer to them by their titles.The Trustees of Habib Esmail Memorial Trust are owners of a hotel known as 'Hotel Bombay International' situate in the building known as 'Dar-Ul-Habib' at the junction of Dinshaw Valeria Road and Netaji Subhash Road (Marine Drive), Bombay. By an agreement dated September ,24, 1968, the Trustees allowed Merchant Hotels Private Limited to conduct the hotel for a period of five years from August 1, 1968 with an option of renewal of further five years on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. Merchant Hotels exercised the option of renewal and accordingly an agreement of renewal dated April 12,1976 was executed. I...
Arvi Tahsil Co-operative Agricultural Purchase and Sale Society Ltd. V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR28
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under section 33-C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).The respondent filed a claim petition in which he claimed the difference between his existing wages and the minimum wages fixed under the minimum wages notification for the shops and commercial establishments. The learned Labour Court allowed the claim made by him. Being aggrieved the petitioner society has preferred the instant writ petition writ petition in this Court.2. The first contention, which is raised in this writ petition by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Minimum Wages Act is a self contained Code and hence application under section 33-C(2) of the Act was not tenable. The said contention however, stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Council Achalpur v. Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Rustam and others, 1984 Mh.L.J. 998. The above contention therefore deserves to be rejec...
Sadu Vithal Joshi Vs. Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR628
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. This appeal arises against the decree dismissing plaintiff's suit for injunction and against the order simultaneously passed rejecting appellant's notice of motion for interim injunction. The appellant is a tenant of a room on the terrace of a building situate on Plot No. 134, Govindji Kani Road, Dadar, Bombay. On the allegation that the appellant unauthorisedly constructed a shed adjoining the room in his possession, the respondent-Corporation served a notice on the appellant under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act calling upon him to show cause why the unauthorised construction mentioned in the notice should not be demolished. This notice dated September 5, 1980 was received by the appellant on November 12, 1980. It was issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone II. To this notice appellant gave a reply on November 18, 1980 through his Advocate contending inter alia that he was not carrying out any new construction but he was just repairing ...
Herdilla Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: (1986)19ITD579(Mum.)
1. 1 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. The last ground pertains to the sum of Rs. 1,05,078 assessed as capital gains and Rs. 8,68,046 as profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act').The facts in this regard are that the assessee-company had insured the PAN plant including the equipments which are the composite parts thereof, one of them being the PAN reactor, for their replacement value. There was a fire in the factory during the year on 4-1-1973, in which the PAN reactor was destroyed. The assessee received compensation from the insurance company amounting to Rs. 16,65,486. There is no dispute as regards the amount computed as profit under Section 41(2) and as the capital gains. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that these amounts are not taxable. The ITO noted in para 8 of his order that the assessee-company has installed the PAN reactor in 1968 at a cost of Rs. 15 lakhs. It was used for about six years and w...
Cyrus Nazar Kolah Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC253(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT515(Bom)
1. In pursuance of information regarding concealment of large quantity of contraband goods on board the ship M.V. 'Goods Hope-l', a vigil maintained and when the ship arrived in the early hours of November 11, 1977 and anchored of Bombay Floating Light due to immobilisation of the engine, the Customs Officers searched the ship. On search it was noticed that contraband article, consisting of 384 pieces of wrist watches, 7 pieces of watch straps, 11 meters saree material, 4 pieces of calculators and several pieces of cassette tapes were hidden. All the contraband articles were seized. Subsequent search resulted in recovery of several more contraband article. After the search was over, the statement of the Captain, First Engineer, Second Engineer, and other officers on the vessel were recorded. The Additional Collector thereafter issued the show cause notice to the officers, including the petitioner, who was the second explain why personal penalty should not be levied as the officers were...
Tata Exports Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 1989(24)ECC272; 1989(39)ELT49(Bom)
1. Petitioner is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in the business of imports and exports. The petitioner is a registered export house and in that capacity obtained import licences pertaining to the licensing period April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973. The licences were endorsed for the import of concentrates of rum, gin, whisky, brandy and vodka. The petitioner Company used to sell the imported concentrates of these beverages to McDowell and Company Ltd. In the year 1974 the petitioner Company imported 50 futs of Brandy concentrate and before that consignment was shipped by the French suppliers, a certificate of Analysis was obtained from the French Customs. In April 1974 bill of entry was filed in respect of the consignment and the Customs Authorities detained the consignment and examined the samples. The Appraiser of the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on August 1, 1974 to explain why goo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »