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.
Berlia Chemicals and Traders and Vijaykumar Berlia of Bombay Vs. the U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC659(Bombay)
Bharucha, 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when a notification issued under statutory powers granting exemption from a duty or tax for a stated period is superseded during that period The question has been decided in favour of the appellants by our Judgement dated 31st July, 1987 in O.O.C.J. Appeal No. 960 of 1983, Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & others.2. In the case of Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd., as here, the 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 the 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 filed and the question has, ...
Metal Box India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT694Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All these appeals arise out of and is directed against the common order bearing No. S/10-176,213,212, and 211 /86F dated 30-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. As the parties to these appeals are the same and as the appeals involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. The appellants are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carry on business of manufacturing among other things metal containers. For the purposes of manufacturing tin containers, the appellants have been Importing various types of tin plates from the various countries including U.K., Spain and Brazil. There are different types of tin plates known in the international and local market. According to the appellants, the internationally known types are Type L, MR, CP, N and MC. The above type of tin plates are used in packaging industry.4. The appellants imported TO consignments of tin plates of Prime OTS quality described ...
Kay Distillery Industries Ltd. Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD376(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee-company against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) VII, Bombay.2. The assessee is a limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82, for which the relevant previous year was 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980. The Board of Directors of the assessee-company at their meeting held on 3-10-1979 passed the following resolution :- RESOLVED that an amount of Rs. 3,75,000 (Rupees Three Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) out of the estimated profits for the financial year 1979, be paid as an interim dividend and the same be distributed on and after 11th October, 1979 to the equity shareholders, whose names stood on the Register of Members as at 3rd October, 1979 @ 25% on the paid-up capital of the company subject to deduction of tax.In the balance sheet of the company as at 30th June, 1979, this amount of Rs. 3,75,000 was shown under the head 'Current liabilities and provisions' in Schedule H annexed and forming part of the Balanc...
Fifth Income-tax Officer Vs. Hastimal Madanraj and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD432(Mum.)
1. We have two appeals before us. One is by the department; the other is by the assessee.2. The assessee is a firm carrying on business in money-lending and in dealing in silver ornaments. The original assessment for assessment year 1976-77 was completed on 27-1-1977 on total income of Rs. 35,127.3. On 3-6-1975, the Gold Control authorities had raided the business premises of the assessee and found primary gold weighing 182 gms. and brand new gold ornaments weighing 1038.5 gms. total weight being 1220.5 gms. and the value as estimated by those authorities being Rs. 61,000.Those authorities found that the assessee was carrying on business in gold although the assessee had not obtained any licence for said business and as such assessee had contravened the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. The Collector of the Customs passed an order in April, 1976 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the firm and Rs. 2,500 on each of the two partners under Section 74 of the said Act. He ordered that th...
Ajit Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1987
Reported in: 1987(31)ELT615(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The appeal assails the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' writ petition with no order as to costs.2. The 1st appellate is a private limited company which manufactures glass bottles and other glass articles. The 2nd appellant is a director thereof. The price list filed by the 1st appellant with the Excise authorities for the period effective from 1st October, 1974 was approved. In the price so shown the cost of wooden cases, in which the appellant's glass bottles were packed, were not shown because the wooden cases were stated to be durable and returnable. In checking the invoices, however, the Excise authorities noted that the 1st appellant was recovering from the purchasers of its bottles amounts as packing charges which were equal to 1/3rd the total cost of the wooden cases because the wooden cases were used for the purposes of packing glass bottles twice or thrice.3. On 10th September, 1976 the 1st appellant was issued with a sho...
Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1987(2)BomCR691; 1990(27)ECC203; 1988(38)ELT401(Bom)
Dr. Couto, J.1. The facts and the issues that gave rise to these writ petitions are intimately connected and hence, this common judgment.2. Petitioners, a Private Limited Company with registered office at Mormugao Harbour, challenge in these two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the validity of the directives given by the second respondent by his letters dated 26th March and 10th April, 1987, as well as the orders dated 26th, 31st March and 9th April, all of 1987. They further seek a Mandamus directing the second respondent to withdraw the said directives and orders, to assess the wreck of the 'S. S. Maratha Transhipper' to duty on the assumption that the vessel is not exigible to duty and to forbear from levying any customs duty as well as additional or auxiliary duty, in respect of the import of the said vessel, giving them the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 262 of 1958 or of the Notification No. 133 of 1987.3. In October, 1969, the 'S. S. Marat...
Arphi Incorporated Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC109; 1987(31)ELT627(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture hearing aids, group hearing aids, and speech trainers (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') at their factory at Prabhadevi, Bombay. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are liable to excise duty under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.2. It appears that there was a Notification No. 55/75, dated 1st March 1975, whereby there was an exemption in respect of the goods which are exciseable under Item No. 68 but relating to artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. The petitioners' case is that they were not aware of this notification. They started their factory in 1977 and classified their goods under Item 68 and paid the duty without realising that they were not liable to pay the said duty by virtue of the said exemption notification.3. However, sometime in the month of April 1980, the petitioner came to know that they were exempt from the levy of excise duty by virtue of the said notif...
Arphi Incorporated Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC80(Bombay)
H. Suresh, J.1. The petitioners manufacture hearing aids, group hearing aids, and speech trainers (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') at their factory at Prabhadevi, Bombay. The goods manufactured by the petitioners are liable to excise duty under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. It appears that there was a Notification No. 55/75 dated 1st March 1975, whereby there was an exemption in respect of the goods which are excisable under Item No. 68 but relating to artificial limbs and rehabilitation aids for the handicapped. The petitioners' case is that they were not aware of this notification. They started their factory in 1977 and classified their goods under Item 68 and paid the duty without realising that they were not liable to pay the said duty by virtue of the said exemption notification.3. However, sometime in the month of April 1980, the petitioners came to know that they were exempt from the levy of excise duty by virtue of t...
Petron Engineering Construction (P.) Ltd. and Another Vs. Central Boar ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)89BOMLR383; (1987)65CTR(Bom)314; [1988]171ITR80(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The Judgment and the order of Jahagirdar J. (See : [1987]165ITR668(Bom) ) dismissing the appellant's writ petition is the subject matter of this appeal.2. The appellants applied to the Central Board of Direct Taxes for approval under section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of the agreements dated April 5, 1980, and August 14, 1980, entered into between them and Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (now called 'Toyo India'). After giving the appellants a hearing, the Board rejected the appellants application by its letter dated March 27, 1981. The Board held that the agreements could not be approved under section 80-O because they were not made with the Government of a foreign state or a foreign enterprise and because the payments thereunder were payments from the Government of a foreign state or a foreign enterprise.3. The order of the Board was impugned in the writ petition filed by the appellants. The learned single judge upheld the contention of the appellants that, under th...
P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1987
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC207; 1987(31)ELT369(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture what is known as 'push-pull switches, headlight switches and stop-light switches' for the motor vehicles, and for that purpose they have a factory off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Bombay - 400 063. The said switches manufactured by the petitioners are parts and accessories of 'motor vehicles' and prior to June 1979 they attracted ad-valorem duty under Tariff Item 34A of the First Schedule to the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). Tariff Item 34A prior to its amendment by the Finance Act of 1979 stated as follows :'Parts and accessories not elsewhere specified, of motor vehicles and tractors, including, trailers. Explanation - The expression 'Motor Vehicles' has the meaning assigned to it in Item No. 34.'2. In 1979, the Tariff was amended to include the specified parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors, on which duty was payable under Item 34A. The effect of this amendment was that such of the parts an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »