Mumbai Court April 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.
GlIndia Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1989(22)ECC311; 1988(18)LC181(Bombay)
1. The first petitioners company manufacture a diverse range of preparations including drugs and medical preparations, laboratory chemicals and nutritional food products for animals. Petitioners have their factory at Worli in Greater Bombay and at Thane. The petitioners manufacture inter alia products which are known by trade names Vitablend. WM Forte and Vimeral. These preparations contains Vitamins A, B & D and are intended to be used as supplements to either liquid or solid animal feeds. They are known in the trade as animal feed supplements. The petitioners have relied upon a certificate dated 25th February, 1974 from the Commissioner Food and Drug Administration to the effect that General Liquid Food Supplement is an animal feed supplement and is not a drug within the meaning of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. They have also annexed affidavits of stockists of animal food saying that these products are purchased for the purpose of supplementing animal and poultry feed. They are not ...
Shah and Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(37)ELT503(Bom)
ORDER1. Pursuant to her earlier undertaking given to this court on 11th March, 1988, learned Advocate Miss Reshma Ruparel has since filed her appearance for the petitioners in all these petitioner and the same has been taken on record. M/s. Kanatwala & Co. Advocate and solicitors, are, therefore, as earlier indicate, now discharged as Advocates for the petitioners.2. Pursuant to court's suo notice, proceeding how come up for considering the affidavit of advocate Nitin Kantawala filed to show that there is as against him, no case for criminal contempt, before that, however, a brief resume of the facts and circumstance may be useful.3. The main relief claimed in these petitioners relates to refund of duty paid. At the hearing the reasoning had contended that the petitioners had filed three writ petitioners and, pursuant to orders thereon, obtained refund : that even so the petitioners filed the present petitioners claiming refund once again of those very amounts : Whereas earlier refund ...
Standard Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC246(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT389(Bom)
1. The petitioners imported potassium chloride Technical Grade during the year 1977-78 under 11 consignments. The petitioners were required to pay countervailing duty in respect of these consignments. According to the petitioners, countervailing duty was not payable and hence they paid countervailing duty under protest and cleared the goods.2. The petitioners, thereafter, filed refund claims for refund of countervailing duty in November 1977 and January 1978. Eleven such refund claims were filed. By a common order dated 1st March 1978, the Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund applications.3. Under the Tariff Advice dated 2nd April 1979 bearing No. 10/79 which were issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, it was clarified that potassium chloride which is not bought or sold in the market as a fertiliser i.e. potassium chloride of Technical Grade was outside the purview of Tariff Item 14HH and hence would not attract countervailing duty.4. In view of thi...
Universal Cans and Containers Ltd., Bombay Vs. Union of India and Othe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(19)LC86(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT85(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of aluminium products and for the same it is importing raw material known as slugs or circles having a hole in the center. In the petition, it has been mentioned that slugs are basically industrial raw materials and are not finished products by themselves.2. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 19th of October 1981 from the Assistant Collector of Customs at Bombay, calling upon the petitioner company to show cause why aluminium slugs should not be classified under Heading No. 76.08/16 of the Customs Tariff Act and, accordingly, assessed to customs duty. The petitioner replied to this show cause notice by its letter dated 26th of October 1981. In this reply, the petitioner pointed out that the Collector of Customs, who is an authority higher than the Assistant Collector of Customs issuing the present show cause notice, has taken a view that the aluminium slugs imported by the petitioner are classifiable under...
Dhruva Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC220(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT255(Bom)
1. The short question involved in this petition is whether the respondents, namely the authorities in charge of imports and exports joined in this petition as respondents Nos. 2 to 4, are entitled to forfeit the amount under a bond executed by the petitioner on 22nd of February, 1973. The petitioner is a woollen textile mill and it made an application for importing a permanent finishing and setting machine with a C.I.F. value of Rs. 1,65,870. The import licence was given subject to the condition, which condition was incorporated in the bond executed by the petitioner on 22nd of February, 1973, that 'the said importers (the petitioners) shall within three years from the date of arrival of the last consignment or such further time as may be granted by the said Joint Chief Controller, export woollen fabrics of the value equal to the C.I.F. value of the imported goods to foreign countries excluding Nepal, Tibet, Sikkim, Bhutan.' The averments in the petition show that the petitioner was no...
Sheel thermoplastics Limited and Another Vs. Union of India and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)ECC248; 1988(20)LC314(Bombay); 1988(36)ELT106(Bom)
1. The petitioners manufacture PVC leather cloth also known as supported cellular vinyl sheeting. The process of manufacture is briefly as under :PVC paste is applied in many layers on thin cotton fabric which is the base. The base fabric is first treated with non-thermo-plastic compound which fills instrinsic holes and makes it suitable for carrying the PVC. Several layers of PVC are applied on it. In the end product PVC compound is 6 to 10 times in weight as compared to the base cotton fabric. The percentage of cotton fabric in the final product is only 8% to 15%. The end product has special properties and has characteristics of foamed plastic. The petitioners are registered with Polymers and Plastic Department of the Directorate of Trade and Industry.2. In September, 1981 or thereabouts the petitioners commenced manufacture of PVC leather cloth. On 5th August 1981 the Excise Department provisionally classified the product under tariff item 19(ii) of the 1st Schedule to the Central E...
Fine Composite Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1988
Reported in: 1988(18)LC506(Bombay)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. The petitioners manufacture paper tubes and paper cones. It is an accepted position that in view of the circular which was issued by the respondents on 6th August 1983, the goods manufactured by the petitioners are exempt from payment of Excise duty by virtue of exemption Notification No. 66/82 dated 28.2 1982. The present petition is in respect of the denial of the refund claim of the petitioners for the period 11 3.1982 to 7.2.1983. The claim for the subsequent period has been granted. The earlier claim is rejected as time-barred.2. The petitioners applied for a refund for the period 11.3.1982 to 7 2 1983 less than 3 years from the date of the clarification. They have filed the present petition within less than 2 years of the rejection of their application for refund. In these circumstances this is a fat case where the delay in applying for refund should be condoned.3. The respondents oppose the petition on the ground that granting a refund would amount to unjust...
Ulhas Oil and Chemical Indus. P. Ltd. Vs. H.M. Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR41; 1988(18)ECC316; 1988(36)ELT462(Bom)
1. The petition concerns export by the petitioners of Rape Seeds Extractions which are considered as animal food.2. The petitioners desired to export two consignments of 250 tonnes each of Rape Seeds Extractions by vessel m.v. 'Slobozia' from Bhavnagar. The vessel arrived at Bhavnagar on 25.4.1977. The petitioners submitted on 26.4.1977 the shipping bill for export of the first consignment and paid export duty of Rs. 31,250 to the Customs authorities under protest. On 27.4.1977 the petitioners submitted the shipping bill for export of the second consignments and paid export duty of Rs. 31,250 to the customs authorities under protest. The consignments were loaded on the vessel and the petitioners obtained Mate Receipts dated 28.4.1977 and 30.4.1977 in respect of the two consignments. These receipts indicate that on the said dates the consignments were loaded on the vessel.3. Up to 30th April 1977 Rape Seed extract was exigible to export duty. On 20.4.1977 a notification was issued under...
Rollatainers Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD182(Mum.)
1. The only question that arose in this appeal relating to the assessment year 1977-78 is whether the second unit started by the assessee called Unit No. 2 is entitled to the relief provided for under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act. The relief due to the assesaee was denied on the ground that Unit No. 2 was carved out of Unit No. 1 and the financial accounts maintained were so mixed up and showed a situation where the liability in respect of Unit No. 2 far exceeded the investments resulting- in deficiency in capital and whatever borrowings that were made clearly for investment in Unit No. 2 on which the relief under Section 80J was not due.2. The assessee, which is a limited company and which has its accounting period of September 1975, filed a return declaring a net loss of Rs. 17,58,587, which was later on revised to Rs. 20,85,669. The revision was made mainly to claim more relief under Section 80J. The assessee-company claimed inter alia relief under Section 80J at Rs. 12,36,356...
Saikee Mazar and Others Vs. B.N. Patel and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR670; (1988)90BOMLR689
Agarwal, J.1. This petition seeks a declaration that the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 are ultra vires of Art. 14 of the Constitution and for an order directing the respondents 2 and 3 being the Inspector General of Prisons, Bombay and the State of Maharashtra to grant remission to the petitioners under the said Rules. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to remission for the period spent by them in jail custody as under trial prisoners.2. The petitioners were found guilty for the offences under section s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with S. 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and S. 5 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on each of the aforesaid three counts. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention undergone during the trial was ordered to be set off against the sentence of imprisonmen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »