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.
Shree Sadguru Trading Company Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1986
Reported in: 1988(19)LC10(Bombay); 1988(38)ELT458(Bom)
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in classifying the Dextrose Anhydrous imported by the petitioners under Heading 17.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, treating it as sugar in solid form and subjecting it to duty at 100%. The petitioners claim that the imported consignment should have been treated under Tariff Heading 29.01.45, namely Organic Compounds not otherwise specified and attracting duty at 60%.2. The petitioners purchased a total quantity of 75,600 Kilograms of Dextrose Anhydrous from the foreign concern and the goods arrived by vessel 'Freyburg'. The petitioners filed bills of entries, but the classification made by the petitioners was not accepted. The petitioners there upon filed the present petition on October 25, 1982 and the petition was admitted and the petitioners were permitted to clear the goods on furnishing of bank guarantee.3. Shri Bulchandani, learned counsel ap...
Eastern Steamship Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(11)ECC53; 1986(25)ELT683(Bom)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging certain orders passed by the respondents under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners, who are a private limited company engaged in the business of agents for shopping companies, contend that the orders to be mentioned hereinafter passed by the respondents are not warranted by the provisions of Section 116 of the Customs Act and the fines which have been imposed upon them ought to be refunded.2. The facts are very few and may straightaway be stated. The petitioners were acting as agents of a vessel known as M.V. LUKITA which had on board cargo for discharge at Colombo and in fact it had called at the port of Colombo. It is stated and it is not disputed that at Colombo there was a strike and after discharging part only of the cargo meant to be discharged at Colombo, m.v. LUKITA hastened back to Bombay some time in December 1969. Since it was not possible for m.v. LUKITA to return to Colombo, the Agent...
Unnati Corporation Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(10)ECC236; 1988(19)LC382(Bombay); 1987(30)ELT896(Bom)
1. The petitioners are a partnership firm and carrying on business as Manufacturers, Processors and Suppliers in Fibre Glass Cloth which is woven from Glass Fibre Yarn. The petitioners had imported Glass Fibre Yarn from, Marglass, England and Itoman, Japan from January 1979 onwards, and the Customs duty as well as the additional duty/countervailing duty referred to in Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was duly paid. Glass Fibre Yarn falls under Item 22-F of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act. The petitioner had imported between the period from January 1979 to January 1981, 21 consignments of Fibre Glass Yarn and had paid additional duty/countervailing duty amount to Rs. 2,34,848.49.2. In July 1981, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, in the case of M/s. Montex Glass Fibre Industries Pvt. Limited and M/s. Mica Glass Industries Limited held that Glass Fibre Yarn falling Under Central Excise Tariff No. 22 F(1) was yarn spun-wholly out of glass fibres an...
Oliveira C. Henriques Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR317
G.F. Couto, J.1. The short question that this writ petition gives rise to is whether the fourth respondent was justified in not taking the action which he was bound to do under law as the sixth respondent had built a structure without licence and thereafter, had been running a poultry farm therein without obtaining the no objection certificate of the health authorities and inspite of the objection of the neighbourhood.2. The relevant facts that gave cause to this petition may be stated. Petitioner has his residential house situated at Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama in a property surveyed under Chalta Nos. 20 and 21 of P.T. Sheet No. 139 of the City Survey, Vasco-da-Gama. The said property is bounded on the northern side with the property belonging to the respondent No. 6 which is surveyed under Chalta No. 22 of P.T. Sheet No. 139. The respondent No. 4 granted a licence to the sixth respondent to start the business of a poultry farm in his aforesaid property but the said licence was granted...
Charudatta S/O Prabhakarrao Pingle Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR734; 1986MhLJ907
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for withholding Rule F(vi) of the Rules for admission for the year 1985-86 and to consider him for admission under pre-existing Rule 6-B(vii) of the rules for admission for 1984-85.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner passed the XII Standard examination in the year 1984-85 and obtained 253 marks out of 300 in the Science subjects. He had rendered voluntary health service on five occasions, each of fifteen days duration, under the Rules as had existed prior to the coming into force of the new Rules on December 21, 1984 and was entitled to get additional 5 marks on that count. Respondent No. 3 Vandana Rastogi, who had obtained only 257 marks out of 300 was admitted to the Government Medical College on February 14, 1986. The Petitioner, under the Rules dated December 21, 1984, which applied for the year 1985-86 was held entitled under Rule F(vi) to only a maximum 3 marks calculat...
Eastern Steamship Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), K.K. Kaira, A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1986
Reported in: 1988(14)LC287(Bombay)
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging certain orders passed by the respondents under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners, who are a private limited company engaged in the business of agents for shipping companies, contend that the orders to be mentioned hereinafter passed by the respondents are not warranted by the provisions of Section 116 of the Customs Act and the fines which have been imposed upon them ought to be refunded.2. The facts are very few and may straightaway be stated. The petitioners were acting as agents of a vessel known as m.v. LUKITA which had on board cargo for discharge at Colombo and in fact had called at the port of Colombo. It is stated and it is not disputed that at Colombo there was a strike and after discharging part only of the cargo meant to be discharged at Colombo, m.v. LUKITA hastened back to Bombay some time in December 1969. Since it was not possible for m.v. LUKITA to return to Co...
Sohanlal Awashthi and anr. Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)BomCR92; [1987(54)FLR796]; 1987MhLJ25
B.G. Deo, J.1. 'Which is the Court within whose local jurisdiction the offences of non-payment of contribution under section 85-A and the offence of non-submission of contribution cards under section 85(g) are committed under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, (for short the Act), when the Regional Office of the Corporation under the Act is situated at Nagpur and the employees governed by the said Act reside elsewhere beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of Nagpur Court' is the common question of law of some importance which arises for decision in all the aforesaid six revision applications.2. All these six Criminal Revision Applications are by employers from Nanded. Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 84/86 to 87/86 are by the Chairman, Nanded Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Society Ltd.; Nanded and the General Manager of the Nanded Central Co-operative Consumers Wholesale and Retail Society Ltd.; Nanded, Criminal Revision Application Nos. 88/86 and 89...
Polymers Corporation of Gujarat Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT812Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal preferred by M/s Polymers Corporation of Gujarat Ltd. under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 against the Order No. l/MP/84 dated 27-3-84 of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Baroda rejecting the appellant's request for remission of Centra! Excise duty amounting to Rs. 35,650/- on 11,500 bags weighing 575 metric tonnes of neutralised waste classifiable under Tariff Item 68.2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Mehta stated that the appellants were a Corporation of the Govt. of Gujarat and it had been subsequently merged with another Corporation of the Gujarat Govt. by the name of M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation. The appeal related to the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 35,650/- on neutralised waste paid by the appellants under protest as the Collector had rejected the request for remission of this amount of duty under Rule 49. Shri Mehta further stated that the appellants were manufacturers of fertilisers falli...
Principal Collector of Customs Vs. thermax Private Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC545Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Through this present application, the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay prays for condonation of delay in filing the appeal which has been registered under No. CD 612/86. The Principal Collector's appeal is against the Order No. 5/49-409/85 CC dated 17-7-85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, under which he allowed the Respondent's appeal and held that the consignment of boilers and accessories imported by the respondents for being supplied to M/s. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. for erecting a captive power generation plant for them, was eligible to the lower rate of Customs duty under Notification No. 71/85 Cus. dated 17-3-85. Since the Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay was of the view that the imported goods were not meant for power projects which were covered by Notification No. 71/85-Cus. dated 17-3-85, he filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the aforesaid order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals); and this has been registered under CD(SB)(WR) 612/...
W.S. Vaingankar Vs. M/S Hodek Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others E ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1986
Reported in: 1986(3)BomCR444; (1986)88BOMLR550
ORDER1. All these applications are filed by the original complainant Shri V. S. Waingankar, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India. Bombay against various accused persons in different criminal cases launched by the complainant for the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Penal Code. They can, therefore, be disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner complainant and his staff conducted series of raids in the months of December, 1985 against various Kirloskar Group of Companies and their Directors and several documents were seized during the raids. On inspection of the said documents, the Directorate of Enforcement found that various Companies had committed breaches of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 1973. The complainant, therefore, filed seven cases against various persons. They were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Pune and are registered as Criminal cases ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »