Mumbai Court December 1988 Judgments

Chirag International Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT517Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Both these appeals arise out of , and are directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. .S/49-179/88L (BMY) and S/49-180/88L(BMY) (Nos2745/88BCH) dated 18.7.1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. As these appeals involve common question of facts and law, they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are not in dispute. M/s Chirag International who are one and the same in both the appeals, imported two consignments, one containing 900 kgs. and another containing 300 kgs. of Potassium Cyanide and sought clearance against REP licence No.313652/C/LL/03/B/86 dated 29.1.1987, which was valid for import of Electroplating Salts and Brighteners. The customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that Potassium Cyanide is specifically and independently shown in Appendix 3 Part A at Serial No.355(1) whereas Electroplating Salts and Brighteners are separately given at Serial 131 of the P...

Ramesh Asumal Pahelwani Vs. Collector of Customs (P)

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-original bearing No. 3/Collr./1986, dated 31-1-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (P), Gujarat, Ahmedabad.2. The subject ofchallenge in this appeal is the absolute confiscation of the truck GTY-6245. Shri Bodke, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the registered owner of the truck in question. He had sold this truck to one Shri Kassam Umer Makha for Rs. 1,85,000/- through Shri Ramdas Mithubhai. He had received Rs. 45,000/- on 9-9-1983, in the presence of Dalai Ramdas Mithubhai Soni. As per the agreement, Shri Kassam was to pay the remaining Bank instalments for the truck. The truck was registered in his name and it was to be changed after the bank instalments have been paid up. Shri Bodke read out the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 108 which indicated that Shri Kassam had further sold the truck to a person, who indulged in illegal business. It was also stated in his statem...

Goa State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Goa and Other ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR250; (1989)91BOMLR207; [1991]71CompCas486(Bom)

Dr. Couto J.1. The short question that this writ petition gives rise to is whether it was open to the Government to appoint a chief executive to the petitioner-bank after it became a multi- State co-operative society. 2. The first petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960, as applied to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. Its authorised share capital is Rs. 1,25,00,000, the total subscribed capital being Rs. 1,26,79,400, out of which Rs. 50,39,000, had been subscribed by the Government of Goa. The petitioner-bank's borrowings and debentures are guaranteed by the Government of Goa and besides, the bank has purchased Government bonds worth Rs. 60,00,000. Its area of operation and the objects extended to the whole territory of the then existing Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and it has branches in Goa, Daman and Diu. The Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'), came into force on Se...

Bamwari Lolya S/O. Radhakisan Lolya Vs. the State of Maharashtra and o ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1989(58)FLR902]; (1994)IIILLJ306Bom

V.A. Mohta, J. 1. Constitutional validity of Sections 25FFA and 30A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act), has been questioned in this petition on the ground that they violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The short factual background is that the petitioner M/s. R.R. Loiya Sons (Bidi) Private Limited, which was carrying on business of manufacturing Bidis, closed down its factory with effect from 31st August, 1977, after giving notice of closure dated 27th July, 1977 which is not of a minimum 60 days as required by Section 25FFA and, therefore, criminal prosecution under Section 30A has been launched.2. Section 25FFA which is introduced in the I.D. Act by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 32 of 1972) reads thus:'25FFA(1) An employer who intended to close down an undertaking shall serve, at least sixty days before the date on which the intended closure is become effective, a notice, in the prescribed manner, on the appro...

Pundalik R. More Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT436Tri(Mum.)bai

1. All these stay applications and appeals arise out of and are directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. S/14-5-229/87 (DRI/BZU/101/Appg/49/87) dated 27-7-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay.2. The captioned appeals were not listed for hearing today. Stay applications were, however, listed for hearing. We heard Shri Jeshtmal on the stay applications. We also heard Shri Mondal. On hearing both sides we have decided to take up the appeals themselves and accordingly the appeals were taken up for hearing.3. Since these appeals involve common questions, they are clubbed together and hence this common order.4. By the impugned order, the learned Collector, among other things, had passed the following order :- "I impose a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on S/Shri Pandurang Tukaram Deokar and Pundlik Raghunath More under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. I also impose a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on S/Shri Pandurang Tukaram Deokar and Pundlik Raghunath More under Se...

Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1991]188ITR122(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the assessee in regard to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71. Three questions are raised which read thus :' (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purposes for section 40(c)(iii) /40(a)(v), what is to be taken into account is the value of the benefit or amenity or perquisite in the hands of the employee on account of any expenditure incurred by the employer and not the entire expenditure incurred by the employer?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 40(c)(iii) /40(a)(v), applied in the case of the employees of the assessee in its overseas branches?(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 1,95,935 incurred on export of tea from East Africa to the United Kingdom?'...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. L.P. Gas Transport and Bottling Co. P. ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]184ITR572(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. The question of law referred to us for opinion at instance of the department in this reference is :'Whether, on the fact and in the circumstance of the case, the finding that the assessee is entitled to development rebate in respect of plant and machinery installed during earlier year when no development rebate reserve was created in the year of installation of the plant and machinery because of lack of profits in those years, is correct ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue by this court decision in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. S. Rajagopalan, ITO : [1973]92ITR241(Bom) and that the question should. Therefore, be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sardar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1990]186ITR186(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. Only one question of law has been referred in this case at the instance of the Department. The question reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the units set up for the manufacture of monocholaracetic acid aNd denatured spirit were new industrial undertaking to which section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied ?'2. Counsel are agreed that the issue involved herein is covered by this court's decision in CIT v. Simmonds Marshall Ltd. : [1986]161ITR817(Bom) and that the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question is so answered. No order as to costs....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. South India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1992]193ITR774(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Three questions arise at the instance of the Revenue and they read thus :'(i) Whether the general reserves and taxation reserves are allowable expenditure ? (ii) If question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether such expenditure or allowance would categorically be covered by sections 30 to 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (iii) Whether the taxation reserve or general reserve is liable to be added back under rule 5 (a) of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'The reference arises for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. Virtually, identical questions arose in I. T. R. No. 182 of 1971 in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. That reference (I. T. R. No. 182 of 1971) was decided on August 27, 1981. Following that judgment, the first question before us is answered thus : Neither the taxation reserve nor the general reserve can be considered to be an allowance or an expenditure. In the circumstances, ...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. United Carbon India Ltd

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1989]178ITR444(Bom)

S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Two questions arise in this reference at the instance of the Revenue. They read thus :Assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation and development rebate in respect of the interest capitalised of Rs. 7,82,379 for each of the assessment year under consideration ?'2. Assessment year 1967-68 : '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to compute the 'deficiency' under section 80J(3) as per rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, instead of rule 19 ?'3. Counsel are agreed that the first question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT : [1975]98ITR167(SC) , and this court's judgment in CIT v. Borosil Glass Works Ltd. : [1986]161ITR286(Bom) . The question is so answered.4. In regard to the second question, Mr. Bhatia, learned cou...