Mumbai Court August 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.
Ramabai Wife of Nivrutti Chavan Vs. Nivrutti Nimbhaji Chavan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR161
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. An order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First class, Mehkar on 3-8-1982 acquitting the accused Nos. 1 and 7 of the offence punishable under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 9 of the offence punishable under section 494 read with section 109 or in the alternative read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No. 502 of 1977 has been challenged in this appeal.2. Nivrutti Nimbha Chavan is a resident of village Nimbha in Mehkar Tahsil of Buldana district. He married the complainant-appellant Ramabai about 7 or 8 years prior to the initiation of these proceedings. After the said marriage, Ramabai was staying with Nivrutti at the matrimonial house. Thereafter, according to the complainant she was ill-treated and ultimately driven out. Since then she is staying with her parents at the village Shelgaon-Kakda in the same Tahsil and District.3. On 22nd April, 1977, according to the complainant, responde...
R.D. Ashar Engineering Division anr. Vs. Assistant Collector of Centra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC140(Bombay)
ORDERBharucha, J.1. Admitted.Counsel for the respondents waive notice of the appeal.Heard.The learned single judge rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants on the ground that, admittedly, their application was under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and, admittedly, was made beyond the period of six months.2. The application was made on the basis that the payment which was sought to be recovered thereby had been made under a mistake of law and had been collected without authority of law. To an application for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake of law and recovered without authority of law, the period of limitation prescribed under the Act has no application. Therefore, the reasoning of the learned single judge would I appear to be erroneous. |3. It will, of course, be open to the respondents to contend that there was no mistake of law and that the recovery was not without authority of law.4. The order of summary rejection is, accordingly, set aside a...
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC189
1. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. have filed this appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the order No.A-1236/B-II-137/82 dated 5-8-1982 [F. No. V-2(15A) 1659/79] passed by the Collector of Central Excise, (Appeals), Bombay under which he confirmed the order No. V (15A) 2-3/77/7631 dated 14-8-1979 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise Division T demanding duty amounting to Rs. 5,49,925.04 under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd., Bhandup, Bombay-78.2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd. are manufacturers of paints and varnishes and for the manufacture of these items they require resins which they procure either from the market or by direct import from abroad. M/s. Asian Paints (India) Ltd, also manufacture certain types of synthetic resins from the materials purchased locally or imported which are classifiable under item 15A of the central excise tariff. They had obtained per...
Collector of Customs Vs. JaIn Exports Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC363Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The review show cause notice issued by the Government of India under Section 131/(3) of the Customs Act against the order bearing No.917/80, dated 28-11-1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The undisputed facts are that the respondents M/s. Jain Exports Pvt.Ltd. as the letter of authority holders imported a consignment of Industrial crude palm oil valued at Rs. 1,88,119/- of and sought clearance against the licence bearing No. P/W/2858902, dated 24-7-1978 issued to M/s. P & S Exports Corporation.3. The respondents had entered into a foreign contract by opening irrevocable letter of credit against the licence No. 2820001, dated 15-7-1978 and licence No. 2820676, dated 2-9-1978 both issued to M/s.Thalwar & Khuller Pvt. Ltd. and in respect of these licences the respondents were the letter of authority holders. But then, at the time of actual import the licence No. 2820001 had no b...
Rallis Machines Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT160Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Two appeals filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs against the Order No. V(33)18-10/80/R, dated 25.3.1982 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Division-Ill, Surat, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal. The appellants Rallis Machines Ltd. are the manufacturers of electric fans. They also manufacture stators and rotors. The duty paid electrical stampings and laminations are used in the manufacture of stators and rotors. The stators and rotors manufactured are subsequently used in the manufacture of electric fans. In August 1979 the appellants approached the Central Excise Department for availing profor-ma credit under Rule 56A in respect of duty paid electrical stampings and lamina-tions used in the manufacture of stators and rotors and also for set-off of duty in respect of duty paid on stators and rotors used in fans and in that connection the appellants relied on the Notification No. 95/79, dated 1.3.1979 and the Notification No. 124/65, dated 1...
Berlia Chemicals and Traders Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1993(67)ELT481(Bom)
ORDERBharucha, J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is : Is the plea of promissory estoppel available to a party aggrieved when a notification issued under statutory powers granting exemption from a duty or tax for a stated period is superseded during that period The question has been decided in favour of the appellant by our Judgment dated 31st July, 1987 in O. O. C. J. Appeal No. 960 of 1983, Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd., v. Union of India & Others : 1987(32)ELT40(Bom) 2. In the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd., as here, he respondents had not contended before the learned single Judge that the plea of promissory estoppel, even if available, should not be sustained having regard to the equities. In that appeal, however, on leave being given by the court an affidavit in support of he contention was filed and the question was considered. In the present appeal, although the respondents had sought an adjournment to put in such affidavit, no affidavit has been fi...
Bipinchandra Vrajlal Ghelani Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)ECC77; 1987(31)ELT694(Bom)
ORDER1. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports granted import licence under import policy AM 81-82 on May 11, 1981. The C.I.F. value of licence was Rs. 20,310/- and the shipment was to be done within twelve months from the date of issue. The item to be imported was 'Zip Fasteners' and as per the list annexed to the licence the Zip Fasteners could be imported for the face value of the licence. The petitioners got the licence transferred in their favour and placed an import order. The goods arrived in Bombay on January 7, 1982. The petitioners filed their bill of entry and the duty was assessed at Rs. 38,478.26/-. The petitioners were willing to pay the duty and they were willing to have the goods cleared from the Customs. But at that stage the Customs authorities refused clearance. The petitioners wrote a letter dated January 22, 1982 to the Assistant Collector of Customs seeking justice and asking him to release the goods. However, the Customs authorities would not agree, th...
Union of India and Others Vs. Suwidhi Enterprises and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1989(40)ELT317(Bom)
Tipnis, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 19th February 1985 passed by the learned judge of this Court by which he was pleased to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents.2. The respondents by the writ petition challenged the action of the appellants of not allowing the clearance of snap fasteners upto the value of 5% of the licence on the ground that the limit of 5% of the value is already exhausted by the earlier importation of zip fasteners upto 5% of the limit of the licence.3. The respondents were granted licence on 21st December 1983. Under the said licence they had already imported zip fasteners to the tune of 5% of the face value of the licence. On 5th of March 1984 they imported snap fasteners upto 5% of the value of the same licence. On 5th of May 1984 they filed bill of entry but clearance was refused by the authorities. The contention of the authorities was that on proper interpretation of General Note (3) in Column (5) against Entry-O of A...
Anand Krishnaya Kondiya Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(1)BomCR8; 1987MhLJ1044
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. This petition contains a grievance similar to the one contained in Criminal Applications No. 495 and 534 of 1987 which were disposed of by my judgment dated the 13th July, 1987. The grievance being that the accused who has once been granted bail after his arrest during investigation should not be directed to offer bail at over again after process is issued on a complaint being filed against him. According to the petitioner the bail already granted to him should be held to enure to his benefit till the final disposal of the case and the practice of calling upon the accused to furnish bail at different stages of the prosecution such as during investigation, after issue of process, after the order of committal to the Court of Sessions was not warranted by any law and practice in that behalf and the said practice causes harassment to the accused for no advantage to the prosecution. I have in the aforesaid judgment held that an accused once released on bail need not be r...
Bipinchandra Vrajlal Ghelani Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and Ajay M. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC520(Bombay)
H. Suresh, J.1. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports granted import licence under import policy AM 1981-82 on May 11 1981 The C.I.F. value or licence was Rs. 20,310/- and the shipment was to be done within twelve months from the date of issue. The item to be imported was 'Zip Fasteners and as per the list annexed to the licence the Zip Fasteners could be imported for the face value of the licence. The petitioners got the licence transfered in their favour and placed an import order. The goods arrived in Bombay on Jan 7, 1982. The petitioners filed their bill of entry and the duty was assessed at Rs. 38,478.26/-. The petitioners were willing to pay the duty and they were willing to have the goods cleared from the Customs. But at that stage the Customs authorities refused clearance. The petitioners wrote a letter dated January 22, 1982 to the Assistant Collector of Customs seeking justice and asking him to release the goods. However, the Customs authorities would not agree, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »