Mumbai Court August 1987 Judgments
Shah Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC376Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Govt. of India against the order bearing No.' 679 of 80, dated 25-9-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, by his order dated 30-7-1979 ordered confiscation of 81.960 M/T of M.T.ivl.S. Round bars valued at Rs. 2,12,009/-, but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 28,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. Oberoi Exports, the importers and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. By impugned order the Board rejected the appeal holding "the normal statutory time limit for filing an appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 is three months from the date of the communication of the order to be appealed against, as laid down u...
Tag this Judgment!Dynamic Hydraulics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT77Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The prayer in these applications is identical, namely, to condone the delay of 85 days in filing the appeals.2. Appearing for the applicants Shri Srinivasan submitted that the impugned orders were communicated on 13-12-1986 and the appeals were filed on 8-6-1987. Thus, there was a delay of 85 days. He submitted that immediately after Collector's order, the applicants approached the Central Board of Excise and Customs for warehousing the goods and as a special case the Central Board of Excise and Customs permitted storage of the goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act. Thereafter the appellants entrusted the documents to Shri K. Srinivasan (Consultant) and Shri Srinivasan was to prepare appeals during the first week of February 1987. But unfortunately on 26-1-1987 his mother suffered from a heart attack; therefore, he had to rush to Hyderabad. Shri Srinivasan further submitted that on 13-1-1987 the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement searched the office premises as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Mohmed Rasidkhan Pathan Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT356Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these appeals arise out of and is directed against the order-in-original bearing No. 95/Addl. Collr./1986 dated 8-10-1986 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Gujarat, Ahmedabad.2. As these appeals involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. The undisputed facts are 4,123 tyres (big, small, medium) totally valued at Rs. 4,35,550/- were seized by the officers of the customs of Porbandar from the vessel MSV A1-Mohmadi. During the investigation, the statement of the five appellants were recorded. They uniformly pleaded that they were not aware of the ITC regulations. The tyres were sent freely from Dubai and they had not even paid freight charges.3. After issue of a show cause notice and after consideration of the replies filed by the parties, the Additional Collector of Customs (P) Gujarat, Ahmedabad ordered absolute confiscation of the seized tyres.He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR36; 1987(31)ELT907(Bom)
ORDER1. In or about the month of January 1983, the first petitioner entered into an Export Contract with USSR for the export of 1,000 Metric Tonnes of Taj Toilet Soap. The export value was Rs. 1.30 crores. Having secured the said export contract, the petitioners were entitled to and applied for an advance licence in terms of the policy for the period AM-83 to enable the petitioners to import raw materials and packing materials for fulfilling the said export order. On the anticipation of the receipt of the said advance licence, the petitioners went ahead and took necessary steps for the manufacture and export of Toilet Soap to the Russian buyer. Between the period from May 31, 1983 to July 29, 1983 the actual exports of 975 metric tonnes were effected. The petitioners had to make arrangements for raw materials from its available stocks of imported inedible tallow because, in order to start exports from May 1983 the petitioners could not wait for the actual issue of the advance licence w...
Tag this Judgment!Dowsyl Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. M.G. Abrol, Special Secretar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR40; 1987(31)ELT895(Bom)
ORDER1. Petitioner No. 1 - company is a small scale industrial unit. It has its registered office in Bombay. Petition No. 2 is a shareholder and Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 and also reside in Bombay. They manufacture textile auxillary chemicals and like products.2. The petitioners state that the import trade control policy for the year 1976-77 permitted the nominee of the registered exporters to acquire import licence on actual user basis. Accordingly, as nominees of the registered exporters, the petitioners obtained 4 REP licences for the import of MHP and other chemicals. The licences contained a list of items attached thereto and one of the items permissible for the import therein was MHP. Under the aforesaid licences the petitioner-company could import any of the listed terms for and upto a total value of Rs. 2,95,130/- mentioned therein in specific terms. Amongst other things the licences had this specific condition....'This licence is issued subject to the further condi...
Tag this Judgment!Miranda Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1987
Reported in: 1988(35)ELT621(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The appellants (bri. petitioners) pressed their claim before Sawant J. only in respect of two items. Of these two items only one is pressed before us. This item relates to a claim for refund in respect of headings under which deductions were found to be permissible by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise for the period 1st July 1977 to 27th September 1979 and 1st January 1980 to 20th January 1980. While the Assistant Collector held that these deductions were permissible, he rejected the appellants' claim for refund of the excise duty paid thereon because it was not filed within 6 months, which was the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The learned judge noted that the question before him was whether the claim, though time-barred by Section 11B, should be allowed in the appellants' writ petition since it was filed within 3 years of the accrual of the claim. The learned judge was of the view that the appellants were ...
Tag this Judgment!HusaIn Haji Haroon Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC392Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The applicant by his present application prays for restoration of his appeal which has been rejected for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act under the Tribunal Order No. 1465/85-WRB dated 30-12-1985. On behalf of the applicants, Advocate Gajjar submitted that the applicant was a poor and illiterate person and he did not have any means to deposit Rs. one lakh which were directed by the Tribunal to be deposited under Tribunal's Order No.409/85-WRB dated 15-4-1985 in the Stay Application No. 63/85 filed by the applicant. Besides the levy of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad has also confiscated the vessel MSV Pirani belonging to the applicant under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The vessel was, however, permitted redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. [,75,000/-. After the rejection of the applicant's appeal by the Tribunal, the applicant had approached the Hon 'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad and obtained the order...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishchandra Manilal Modi Vs. Collector of Customs(P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT511Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the present application Shri Modi prays for stay of the operation of the Order No, S/49-186/87-GC, dated 30-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay under which he had rejected the first appeal of Shri Modi against the cancellation of the Gold Dealers' Licence issued to him. On behalf of the applicant Shri Gujaral submitted that Shri Modi had been granted the Gold Dealers' Licence in 1977 and since then the same had been renewed upto December, 1985. In December, 1985 it had again, been renewed for one year ending 31-12-1986. Before the expiry of this licence the applicant made the request for renewal of the licence. But a show cause notice was issued to him asking him to show cause as to why the request should not be refused for the renewal of the licence on account of the fact that in 1982 the Department had filed a case against him which had been adjudicated by the Order No. XVII(GC)S-21/82, dated 23-9-1983 of the Deputy Collector of Customs (P) Gold Control ...
Tag this Judgment!Babulal Ambalal Gandhi and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT252Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision applications filed before the Central Government against the common order bearing Nos. 306 to 309 of 1981, dated 29.6.1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as appeals.2. As these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, they were clubbed together; heard together and hence this common order. That the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, in his adjudication order dated 28.8.1980 besides ordering confiscation of stereo solid state compact cassette and 6 packages of safron made in Spain and motor car bearing No. GGJ 7486 also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant Shri B. A. Gandhi, Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant Shri Subhas Madhubhai Mehta, Rs. 50,000/- on Kirit M. Mehta and Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Suresh M. Mehta. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, all the four appellants herein filed appeals before the Central Board of Excise and Customs....
Tag this Judgment!Jose Inacio Lourence Vs. Syndicate Bank and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1987
Reported in: [1989]65CompCas698(Bom)
Vaze, J.1. The Syndicate Bank granted a loan of Rs. 13,000 on July 9, 1975, to Krishna Chandu Naik for which Jose Inacio Lourence stood as a guarantor. Krishna Naik purchased a chassis of Ashok Leyland make bearing Chassis No. AL-7569520 at Panaji and he as well as Jose Lourence executed an agreement on July 9, 1975, in favour of the bank.2. The loanee made some payments but as further payments were not forthcoming, the Syndicate Bank filed Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1984 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao, against the principal loanee, Krishna Naik, as well as the surety, Jose Lourence. The lower court decreed the suit with a joint and several liability for the principal loanee and the surety against which the surety, Jose Lourence, appeals.3. Mr. Alvares, learned counsel for the appellant, relies on sections 139 and 141 of the Contract Act, 1872, for the proposition, firstly, that the surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »