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.
Mcdermott International Inc. (No. 2) Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)70CTR(Bom)53; [1988]173ITR164(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar J.1. The petitioner is a company established under the laws of the Republic of Panama. It designs, fabricates, constructs platform jackets, decks and piles, bridges, pipelines and does similar on-shore and off-shore construction work. In 1977, the petitioner entered into a contract with the Oil and Natural Gas Commission for laying marine pipelines near Bombay harbour. For this purpose, the petitioner was required to mobilise its vessels which were manned by its expatriate employees. The first of its 31 vessels entered the Indian territorial waters on January 5, 1978. On completion of the contract, the last of the petitioner's vessels left the Indian territorial waters on June 20, 1978. Thus in the accounting year April 1, 1978, to March 31, 1979, (for the assessment year 1979-80) the expatriate employees of the petitioner were in India for a period of less than 90 days. Each of these employees had worked on and from the vessels which were brought into the Indian te...
Griffon Laboratories Private Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT7(Bom)
1. This petition raises the question of the interpretation of Section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Act'. Only few facts are necessary to be mentioned. The petitioners are a limited company engaged in the manufacture of medicines and pharmaceutical formulations. Two of these products contain alcohol and they are hereinafter referred to as 'the said products'. All the products, including the said products, manufactured by the petitioners are sold through another private limited company called Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'Franco Limited'. This latter company has been treated, as least for the purpose of the proceedings culminating in this writ petition, as a related person within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Act. Approximately 4 per cent. of the annual production of the medicinal preparations of the petitioners are distributed free of charge as samples to medical pract...
Steel Age Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT24(Bom)
1. The first petitioner is a limited company of which are second petitioner is the director. For the sake of convenience, they will hereinafter be referred to as 'the petitioners'. The petitioners are engaged in the business of manufacture of security equipments such a safes, strong boxes, safe deposit lockers, furnitures etc. All these are made of steel. For this purpose the petitioner purchase steel sheets and plates from the factories which are now owned by the Steel Authority of India Limited which, as is well known, now owns the steel projects in the public sector. On the products manufactured by them the petitioners have to pay excise duty. However, under a Notification No. 95/79-C.E., dated 1st of March, 1979, credit is available to the petitioners to the extent of the excise duty which has been paid on steel sheets and plates consumed by the petitioners in the manufactures of their own products.2. Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', pre...
Vishnu Bapu Tapkir Vs. Mohannagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1988
Reported in: 1989(3)BomCR244
Sharad Manohar, J.1. The questions involved in both these petitions are identical. The petitions arise out of the proceedings instituted by the respondent society, the owner of the lands in question which are agricultural lands situate near Pune. I am told that they are just outside the Pune Municipal Limits. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 159 /88 is Vishnu Bapu Tapkir (who will be referred to herein as petitioner Tapkir) and the petitioners in the other Writ Petition No. 1593/88 are Namdeo Skharam Pawar & 3 others (they will be referred to herein as the petitioner Pawars).2. Both the petitions have some chequered career. But the present petitions arise immediately out of the proceedings instituted by the society, Mohannagar Co-op. Housing Society Limited (which will be referred to hereafter as the respondent society under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 & hereafter the Tenancy Act.) The contention of the respondent society is that they are the ow...
Mettur Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Apparels Export Promotion Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT257(Bom)
1. The 1st petitioner is a limited company and it says that it is a recognised export house. The 2nd petitioner is the Director of the said company. For the sake of convenience, both the petitioners are hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners'. They are engaged in the business of, among other things, export of ready-made garments through a division which has its office in Bombay. It has been stated in the petition, that the petitioners have exported since 1975 ready-made garments worth over Rs. 385 lakhs.2. The 1st respondent, according to the petitioners, is a body set up by the 3rd respondent for the purpose of controlling, regulating and issuing a variety of export licences for the export of ready-made garments. Mr. Rawal, appearing for the 1st respondent, however, stated that the 1st respondent, hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as 'the respondent', is a company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act. It is not necessary to go into that controversy f...
Dana Corpn. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD185(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a non-resident company incorporated in United States of America. The assessee showed income of Rs. 12,76,940 in the return filed for the assessment year 1980-81, the details of which are as follows : and Perfect Circle Victor Ltd. Rs. 11,40,000(ii) Royalty received from Mahindra 3. In the course of assessment, the Income-tax Officer invited the attention of the assessee to Section 5(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and called upon the assessee to furnish full details of income received on accrual basis during the accounting year and state its objections to such income being assessed on accrual basis. The assessee then furnished details of royalty receivable for the relevant accounting year from Perfect Circle Victor Ltd. in terms of agreement dated 24-1-1975. Under the agreement dated 24-1-1975, the assessee was entitled to receive the royalty at the rate of 4 per cent of the net sale price of the products sold in India and at the rate of 5 per cent on net sale price ...
Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Mudami Parthasarathy Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: 1989(44)ELT437(Bom)
D.N. Mehta, J.1. The Assistant Collector of Customs has filed this Criminal Appeal for enhancement of sentence on the Respondent Mudambi Parthasarathy Narayan. The Assistant Collector has impugned the sentence imposed on the Respondent, who will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Accused', of 1 day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- or in default, to suffer six months' rigorous imprisonment on each of the charges under Section 135(1)(a)(i), and Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 2-1-1987 the Accused arrived at the Bombay International Airport accompanied by his wife and son from New York by PAN AM flight. On a search of the baggage carried by the accused, it was found that the Accused had brought gold valued at Rs. 5,95,200/-. The gold was seized by the Customs under a Panchanama Exhibit P-2.3. In the Adjudication proceedings the contraband gold brought b...
Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd Vs. Union of Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: 1990(26)ECC330
R.A. Jahagirdar, J.1. The question which has been raised in this petition relates to the classification of a product known as cocoa butter in relation to the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. It is necessary to describe the product itself, which has been done in paragraph 3 of the petition and about which there is no dispute. It has been stated in the petition that cocoa butter is a product which is obtained from cocoa beans. These beans are cleaned, roasted and cracked and the broken pieces of the beans known as 'Nibs' are separated from the shells. The nibs themselves are ground and converted into a fine paste which is called 'mass. 'This 'mass' when treated with chemicals and subjected to very high pressure, the excess fat is removed. The resultant substance is known as cocoa cake. The fat which is removed is known as cocoa butter. In other words, when the cocoa beans are tread in the manner described above, tow products emerge, nam...
Rajendra Mansukhlal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)BomCR707
Shah, J.1. By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged his detention pursuant to an order dt. January 8, 1988, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under S. 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on his being satisfied that it is necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community.2. The order of detention is dt. January 8, 1988, and was served on the detenu along with the grounds of detention the same day. The petitioner has challenged his detention on several grounds in the petition. One of the grounds on which the petitioner has challenged his detention is that the mention of the period of his detention in the order of detention dt. January 8, 1988, vitiates the order of detention. Since in our view the impugned order...
Baroda Rayon Corporation Limited, Bombay Vs. Union of India and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: 1988(36)ELT20(Bom)
1. The petitioner is a public limited company having a factory which is licensed under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 to manufacture polyester filament yarn with a certain stated capacity. This petition, as was originally filed, sought to challenge the orders passed by the Customs Authorities confiscating certain goods, reference to the nature of which will be made shortly hereafter, and imposing fine in lieu of confiscation. The said goods had been imported by the petitioner company under bills of entry annexed to this petition as Exs. 'E-1', 'E-2', 'E-3' and 'F'. After the petition was filed, the order giving reasons for the confiscation and the imposition of penalty was passed and by an amendment to the petition, challenge was included to the said order of confiscation and imposition of penalty. The impugned order, which is dated 9th of November, 1981, has been annexed as Ex. 'N' to this petition.2. As already mentioned above, the petitioners are licensed to m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »