Mumbai Court June 1987 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.
Amar Enterprises and Another Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT42(Bom)
ORDER1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of what is known as Electronic Gas Lighter. The Excise Department start levying excise duty under Tariff Item No. 39 which read as 'mechanical lighter'. The petitioners contend that the said product was not 'mechanical lighter'. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held by an order dated December 10, 1979 that the said products were covered under Tariff Item No. 39. As against this the petitioners preferred an appeal to the appellate Collector of Central Excise who reversed the decision. Consequently, the petitioners filed three refund applications in respect of the excise duty, dated August 20, 1979, September 17, 1979 and October 15, 1979 to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. These applications were also rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated October 14, 1980. As against this, the petitioners filed an appeal to the Collector of Central excise who by his order dated December 20, 1980 allowed the said appeal and...
Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and Chemicals Limited Vs. Asstt. Collector of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT43(Bom)
ORDER1. Mr. Shankarramkrishnan prays that the matter may be kept back for some time to enable his counsel to come to the Court.The application made by Mr. Shankarramakrishnan is rejected.Matter is heard.The question involved in this petition is directly covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1980 ELT 249 Garware Nylons Ltd. v. Union of India and others. The question which requires to be considered in this petition is whether Nylon Twine can be considered as Nylon Yarn so as to be covered by Item No. 18 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act. The Division bench has expressly said that such an item is covered by Item No. 18.2. The petitioners have set out in para 5 of the petition as to what they manufacture viz. they manufacture flat yarns by a process of doubling and twisting which becomes fishnet twine (nylon yarn). The respondents have contended that the item comes under Tariff Item No. 68 which contention has been expressly negatived by the ...
Municipal Corporation of Greator Bombay Vs. Forage and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR301; 1987MhLJ623
Bharucha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgement and order making the writ petition of the respondents (original petitioners) absolute. The respondents manufacture Zinc Oxide at a factory in the State of Gujarat. They bring the zinc oxide into the municipal limits of greater Bombay for sale. It is their case that they are not liable to pay octroi on the zinc oxide and the writ petition was filed to restrain the appellants, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, from collecting octroi on their zinc oxide and for refund of the octroi that was already collected.2. Section 139 (4), Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, empowers the Municapal Corporation to collect octroi By reason of S. 192 octroi at rates not exceeding those specified in Schedule H to the said Act is leviable 'in respect of the several articles mentioned in the said Schedule ................. on the entry of the said articles into Greater Bombay for consumption, use or sale therein.' Schedule for consemption, use ...
Bengt Ingmar Eriksson Vs. Jamnibai Sukharya Dhangda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR263
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Very unusual and unprecedented circumstances have given rise to filing of these two motions, and the complex issues arising there from are required to be answered not only by purely legal approach but with human considerations and bearing in mind welfare of two minor girls. The facts to be stated in hereafter would unfold the traumatic experience suffered by innocent people involved in this episode and would also highlight the precautions which must be taken before declaring a child as 'destitute' under the provisions of Bombay Children Act, 1948.2. Jamnibai is a resident of Village Chulane in Bassein Taluka of Thane District, and she was residing there with her husband and two minor daughters Gulab and Laxmi. Both Jamnibai and her husband were working as labourers collecting fire-wood from the nearby forests. Gulab was born on January 12, 1975, while Laxmi on January 2, 1979. On March 19, 1980 Jamnibai with her husband left for work early in the morning leaving the t...
Mafatlal Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC514
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-108/81L, dated 12-4-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal.2. When this appeal was taken up for consideration, none represented the appellant. But then the appellants had addressed a letter dated 6-5-1987 requiring the Tribunal to hear the matter on merits. Having regard to the said letter the departmental representative was heard and the records were perused.3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the imposition of fine of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of confiscation for the import of spares along with capital goods.4. The appellants imported super finishing machinery with spares and accessories. The value of the spares and machineries imported by the appellants exceeded the permissible limit by Rs. 44,651/-. The Dy.Collector who adjudged confiscation held that the spares imported are in excess of permissi...
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Subhkaran and Sons.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT444(Bom)
Desai, Ag. C.J.1. Having heard Counsel for the Appellants, (B.P.T.) and for the Petitioners, we think the following Order which will be treated as Order in the Appeal will sufficiently clarify and project the interests of all the parties. For the sake of passing the Order, the Appeal is admitted. Respondents waive service. The appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith. Advocates are heard.2. Mr. Makhija complains that the lien of the Appellants may be lost by removal of the goods to the bonded warehouse. Mr. Dhanuka states that this will not be the correct position in law inasmuch as such removal is being permitted under the Order of the Court to which the Petitioners are expressly consenting. We will make the position clear so that the Appellants' statutory lien, if any, will remain protected as the removal is under specific Order of the Court.3. Accordingly, it is made clear that removal of the goods which is permitted under the order of the Single Judge passed on 2nd June 1987 will b...
Shah Trading Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC513
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order bearing No. S/49-64/82L, dated 29-6-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The undisputed facts are that the Dy. Collector by his order dated 31-12-1981 ordered confiscation of raw silk valued at Rs. 44,821/-on the ground that to that extent it was not covered by the valid licence.He, however, allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 85,000/-which roughly works out to 200% of the cif value of the offended goods.Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Dy. Collector, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector accepted the appellants' contention that the value of the offended goods would not. come to Rs. 44,821/-. There was a valid licence having a balance of Rs. 25,843/-. If debit is made to that licence the value of the offended goods comes to Rs. 18,97...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›