Mumbai Court May 1988 Judgments
Kekinbhai J. Thakkar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-31-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC194Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-63/87PAS dated 4-9-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. This appeal was listed for short hearing to-day. The short hearing was for the purpose of satisfying the Tribunal as to the maintainability of the appeal.3. The appellant claimed clearance of a revolver as baggage item. The Asstt. Collector ordered confiscation relying on the Public Notice No.131/ITC(PN) 85-88 dated 13-11 -1986 as well as the earlier Public Notice No. 27 as ITC (PN)/80 dated 15-7-1980 which according to the Asstt. Collector imposed prohibition for the import of fire-arm without valid import licence as baggage item. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order and rejected the appeal. Against this order the present appellant has filed this appeal. Since the order of the Collector (Appeals) is dated 4-9-1987 by which time the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders passed by...
Tag this Judgment!HusseIn Haji Harun Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT266Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No. 66/Collr/84, dated 26.10.1984 passed by the Collector of Customs, Ahmedabad. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are :- 2. On specific information that certain contraband goods are concealed in the residential premises of the appellant, the officers of the Customs Divisional Office, Bhuj during the early hours of 2.3.1984 initially searched residential premises of the appellant where he and his family members were staying and nothing incriminating was found in the said premises. Thereafter they proceeded to another house said to belong to the appellant situated behind Juma Masjid, Mota Salaya and found that the house was closed and locked. The appellant's son Eliyas brought the key from the house of his brother-in-law's father.Thereafter in the presence of the panchas, the appellant, his son Eliyas and another son, the said premises was searched. The search resulted in the reco...
Tag this Judgment!Biddle Sawyer P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC262Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the order No. 633 of 1981 dated 11-12- 1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.2. The appellants imported amoxycillin trihydrate, a drug. It was in the Open General Licence during 1978-79 Policy period. However, the appellants' consignment arrived in India in June, 1979 by which time amoxycillin trihydrate stood canalised as per Appendix 9 of the Import Policy of 1979-80 and hence no longer in the OGL. The Collector ordered confiscation of the goods and had adjudged redemption fine of Rs. 5.24 lakhs. In appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, the appellants relied on an earlier order in appeal of the Board (No.980/1980 dated 29-11- 1980) which, the appellants say also related to late shipment. Following the ratio of this earlier order, the Board reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereupon, th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Vijay Kumar N. Murpana
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC735Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The appeal Nos. G/172/88/BOM & G/173/88/BOM arise out of and are directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-80/88-GC & S/49-81/88-GC, dated 12-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The Appeal Nos. G/181,182,183 and 184/88/BOM arise out of and are directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49'67/88-GC, dated 11-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Though the appeals were not listed for hearing this day we have taken up those appeals for consideration since a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the appeals arose while considering the stay applications.3. All the appeals were filed against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) by which he granted stay of the operation of the orders impugned before him. The Collector (Appeals) did not dispose of the appeals. He only granted stay.4. The orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be considered as orders...
Tag this Judgment!Pratibha Silk Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC307Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both these appeals arise out of and are directed against Order-in-Original bearing No. S/MP/84 dated 20.10.1984 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara.2. The Appeal CD(BOM) of 1984 is by the assessee and it was directed against that part of the order of the Additional Collector by which he imposed certain fine amounts, demanded duty as well as imposed penalty of Rs. 7,500/-.3. The Appeal ED(BOM) 11 of 86 is by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, who was directed to make an application by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (for short the Act).4. As these appeals involve common questions of law and facts, they are clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. The appellants M/s. Pratlbha Silk Mills (to be hereinafter referred to as "Assessee") were during the relevant period engaged in the manufacture/processing Art Silk Fabrics falling under Tariff...
Tag this Judgment!Shapoorji and Co. (Rajkot) (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD172(Mum.)
There was a complete merger of the assessing officer's order in the appellate order of the Commissioner. That, however, is not the position under section 264, which enables the Commissioner to pass an order only in respect of those matters which are not covered under section 263. No order to remedy the prejudice to the Revenue's interest can be passed under section 264. Therefore, the original order of the assessing officer did not merge in the Commissioner's order under section 262 or in the order giving effect to it.Where there was merger with appellate order from second order hence original order could be rectified.The appellate order of the Commissioner is from the second order of the assessing officer dated 19-7-1981 and not from the original order of the assessing officer which was sought to be rectified. Regarding the observations of the Commissioner, they do not in any way prevent the assessing officer from rectifying his earlier order. It clearly shows that all that the Commi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhayyaji Gulabrao Armarkat Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)(22)LC46Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The Revision Application filed, before the Central Government against the order bearing No. 186/1981 dated 27.3.81 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : On 7.4.1970, the officers of the Central Excise, on prior information, chased a taxi bearing No. MHG 145 to the Nandgaon-peth Petrol Pump. The appellant and 5 others were found in the taxi besides the driver Mir. Mohd. Ali. In the presence of the witnesses Shri Baburam s/o. Bahasikari Agarwal the owner of Agarwal Canteen and Shri Gunwant Sitaram Vaise, employee of M/s. Agarwal Auto Service the car was searched. A cloth bag with a cloth jacket containing 99 gold slabs bearing foreign markings were recovered and seized. The personal search of all the occupants of the taxi was also taken. A receipt bearing No. 4743 and another slip of paper having no number but written in pencil in t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Smt. Fatmabai HussaIn Juneja
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC348Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This Reference Application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act is by the Collector of Customs, Preventive, Gujrat Ahmedabad, who was the respondent in Appeals No. CD(BOM) 278 to 280 and 291 of 1986. This application arises out of the Order No. 326 to 329/87WRB, dated 13-4-1987 f this Bench. By this application, the Collector requires the Tribunal to draw a statement of case and to refer to the Gujrat High Court the following point : (1) Whether an option is to be extended to the owner of the vessel and whether the interpretation of Section 115 by the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in law 2. During the hearing of this application Shri Senthivel, appearing for the Collector, contended that the question set out in the Reference Application is a question of law and it arises out of the order of the Tribunal and, therefore, the same is required to be referred to the High Court of Gujrat. Shri Senthivel submitted that, according to the finding of the Tribunal, the vessel even if it had ...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Carpet Mfg. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC493Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-125/83M dated 11-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.3. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, rejecting the appellants' claim for refund of duty on the ground of limitation. The appellants have challenged that order.4. The brief facts are: It appears the appellants imported three automatic card sets including dividing tapes. They cleared the machine on payment of duty. After physical clearance they found certain parts of the machine were defective. The suppliers replaced the defective parts. The replaced defective parts were cleared by payment of duty.The refund claim was in respect of the duty paid on the replaced parts.This claim was rejected by the authorities below as being barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.5. During the hearing of the appeal Shri Gupta submitted that he is reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal memo. The substan...
Tag this Judgment!Dandeli Ferro Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD146(Mum.)
2. The assessee is a private limited company and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1980-81. There was a lock-out in the factory due to labour trouble and unrest, from 34-7-1979 to 20-11-1979 and the assessee-company was provided police protection in order to ensure that there was no violence by the workers and the properties of the company were protected. The Superintendent of Police, Karwar, by bill dated 1-1-1980 to the Managing Director of the assessee-company demanded payment of Rs. 3,77,530 for providing police guards to the industrial property. The assessee-company, therefore, in the Profit & Loss account debited this amount of Rs. 3,77,530 for police deployment for the period 24-7-1979 to 24-9-1979 and a further provision of Rs. 3,77,000 for similar police deployment for the subsequent two months, i.e., 25-9-1979 to 20-11-1979. There was thus a debit in the Profit & Loss account of Rs. 7,54,530 on account of police charges which was included in the total securit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »