Mumbai Court February 1988 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.
Gemini Colors Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ishkumar Narayandas Khurana Vs. the U ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC121(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. The Deputy Collector of Customs has, after inspection of the goods and after hearing the petitioners, made his order on 5th January 1988 with reasons in support thereof. He has also indicated the result of the second check examination and the Docks examination report, which latter report clearly states that the goods are not completely premutilated as declared and the goods are serviceable garments after being economically rest itched. In fact some pants have even departmental price tags on them intact. For the reasons stated in his order, the Deputy Collector of Customs has confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but has given to the importers an option to clear the same after further mutilation so as to render the goods into several pieces and to be completely mutilated. Penalty has also been imposed under Section 112 of the Act with the observation that had the condition of the garments not been detected due to percentage examinati...
Manoharlal G. Jewellers Vs. Gold Control Administrator
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT603Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Appeal bearing No.S/49-149/84 GC dated 21-3-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are uncontroverted and they lie in a small compass. The Deputy Collector (Preventive) Gold Control, Bombay, ordered confiscation of gold and gold ornaments weighing 476.750 gms. but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant.3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellant had preferred an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) passed the following order:- "The Order-in-Original in the present case was issued on 30-8-1984 which was received by the appellant on 3-9-1984. The appeal against the order was signed by the appellant on 1-12-1984 and has been received on 3-12-1984 in this office without indicating any grounds for the appellant's inability t...
Empress TIn Factory Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC117(Bombay)
S.K. Desai, Ag. C.J.1. In our opinion, the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly, the Appeal is admitted. Mr. Bulchandani on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for hearing forthwith.2. The Appeal is preferred against the order of the single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition and directing the Appellants to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Although the approach that the Appellants must proceed with their appeal is substantially correct, we think some further order is required to be passed to enable the Appellants to clear the goods but without prejudice to the claims of the Respondents to recover the duty as well as the amounts awarded under the order of the Additional Collector of Customs (the order impugned in the Writ Petition as also in the Appeal).3. The Appellants state that they have already filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellants to proceed with the appeal already filed before the Central Excise ...
Godhwani Brothers Vs. the Assistant Collector of Customs and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC388(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. While this petition has been pending in this Court, the Assistant Collector of Customs has made an order dated 1st February, 1988 fixing the value of the goods in question at U.S.$ O.87 per pound for the purpose of assessment under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. A copy of the said order has been furnished to the petitioner only yesterday evening.2. Against the said order, an appeal lies to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. I see no good reason why the petitioners, if aggrieved by the said order, should not prefer appeal as provided by the Statute, all the more when such an appeal is a fullfledged appeal on facts, law and evidence.3. However, for the gross delay of over five years of the respondents in deciding the matter pursuant to the remand order of 20th July, 1982, there is good justification for permitting the petitioners to prefer appeal, if so advised, against the order of 1st February, 1988 without any pre-condition. There is also go...
Devidayal Non-ferrous Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Superintendent of C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: 1988(16)LC122(Bombay)
ORDERS.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.2. Against the order dated 12th November 1987 at Exhibit N by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division 'E', Bombay-1, an appeal lies to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The said appeal would be a full-fledged appeal on facts, law and evidence. In the circumstances, I see no good reason why the petitioner should not prefer against the aforesaid order, if aggrieved thereby, an appeal as provided by the Statute. Counsel for the petitioner now states that the petitioner will accordingly file an appeal. He, however, submits that the recovery of the demand in question may be stayed till then. In the alternative, he states that the petitioner is agreeable to furnish the requisite bank guarantee.3. In the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner has already preferred appeal against the order of 5th June, 1987 of the Assistant Collector rejecting the claim for exemption and as the sai...
J.V. Rao Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)LC389Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appellants manufacture snuff which at the relevant time fell under tariff item 4(II)(IV) of the Central Excise Tariff. They also held a licence for dealing in un-manufactured tobacco on which duty was paid.2. Central Excise Officers of Ahmedabad visited the applicant'/s premises on 17-3-1979. They noticed that the appellants did not show any production of snuff for the period from 1-1-1978 onward. The officers then examined the business records of the appellants and came to the tentative conclusion that the appellant manufacture and removed a quantity of snuff from the factory without making payment of duty and observance of other Central Excise formalities. After further investigation they issued a show cause notice to the appellants. Words of the show cause notice are reproduced below to show the details of allegations and the basis thereof: "As it appeared, for the reasons earlier stated, that the party had resorted to un-accounted production and illicit removal of Snuff tot...
Tyron Nazarath Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: 1989(1)BomCR293; (1988)90BOMLR161
Dr. Couto, J.1. The appellant was convicted on his own plea for the offence punishable under S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to undergo 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh, or in default, to undergo a further period of imprisonment of one year. It is against this conviction and sentence that the present appeal is moved.2. The prosecution case is that on 3rd July, 1986, at 12 noon and at Feira Alta, Mapuca, the appellant was found in possession of 8 packets containing heroin or brown sugar weighing in all 2 grams.3. The matter came for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, and after the charge was framed, the learned Judge questioned the appellant as to whether or not he was pleading guilty to the offence. The appellant pleaded guilty and, on being satisfied about the voluntary nature of such plea, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence and, after hearing hi...
Ganesh Rajan Servai Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ877Bom
H.H. Kantharia, J. 1. The facts and the law points involved in these three petitions being the same, they are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.2. In these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - workmen question the legality, validity and propriety of the common order passed by the Industrial Tribunal (second respondent) on 24th June, 1986, in applications filed by the first respondent - Company, M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, Times of India Building, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Bombay - 400 001, under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') granting approval of the Company's action of terminating the services of the petitioners.3. The relevant facts are as under:-The petitioners were in the permanent employment of the first respondent company. The petitioner in writ petition No. 2150 of 1986, Ganesh Rajan Servai, was working in the Engineering Department f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›