Mumbai Court May 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.
Sainath Shipping Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(38)ELT323(Bom)
1. The Petitioner No. 2. carries on business in the name of Sainath Shipping Corporation, who is the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 3 is an employee of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. On 6th May 1988, the Assistant Collector of Customs recorded that the Proprietor of the Petitioner No. 1 Subhash Pawar appeared in the examination referred to in Regulation No. 9 of C.H.A. licensing Regulation and failed at the third attempt. Consequently, the Assistant Collector of Customs informed Subhash Pawar that since he has failed to qualify in the examination within the stipulate period of two years after availing three chances, his temporary Customs House Agents licence was liable for concellation from 10.5.1988. This order is impugned in this Petition.2. The first point urged by Mr. Makhija in this :-A temporary licence is always issued to every applicant. Pawar, the Petitioner No. 2 as a proprietor is the holder of such temporary licence. Such licences are issued also to Companies. In the ca...
Usaf Umar Sumbhaniya Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC249
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against Order-in-Original bearing No. 65/Addl. Collr./1987 (File No. VIII/10-168/D.C./86 dated 12-8-87 despatched on 4-11-87 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Prev.) Gujarat, Ahmedabad.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : The appellant, the crew member of the vessel MSV Shade-Al-Mehboob No. BDI 724, declared a Honda Motor Cycle as his baggage, alongwith other baggage articles before the Customs Officer, Salaya. Since the motor cycle was not covered by import licence or C.C.P. the same was seized in the reasonable belief that it was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.3. In his statement, the appellant admitted that he has no C.C.P. but contended that the said motor cycle was received by him as gift and it was old and used motor cycle and its value would be Rs. 2500/- to 3000/- Dubai Dirhams; that he admitted the offence and he was willing to pay fine, penalty and duty on the said motor cyc...
M.D. Nasir Khan and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Bom197
Dhabe, J.1. Parties by counsel Rules heard forthwith. In view of the urgency in these matters ,we have heard them at length at the stage of notice before admission and they are , therfore , disposed of on merits by issuing rule. Since all these writ petitioners relate to the question of admission of the petition therein to the B.Ed. Examination of the Nagpur University to be conducted in July 1988 and thus involve certain common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Although the specific points in each of these petitions are dealt with separately in theis judgment. 2. Briefly , the facts in these writ petition are that the B.Ed, colleges in these writ petitions are all unauthorised colleges to which no affiliation was granted under the provisions of the Nagpur University Act , 1974 (for short the University Act ). However , these unauthorised colleges gave admissions to the students for B.Ed. Course in 1986-87 with impugnity and the students als...
Ashok Vasudeo Shetye Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR137; (1988)90BOMLR198; 1989CriLJ1399; 1988MhLJ903
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner was arrested on 11th June, 1975 for offences punishable under sections 302, 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. on allegations that on that day at about 7.30 p.m. he was blackmarketing cinema tickets at Apsara Cinema along Lamington Road, Bombay and there was not exchange of words and abuses with deceased Ratan Ardeshar Karbhari and Nasarwanji Turner, the head door-keeper and cashier of the Apsara Cinema on account of which the petitioner had stabbed with a gupti the said Ratan Ardeshar Karbhari. Ratan Ardeshar Karbhari succumbed to the injuries received by him and Nasarwanji survived. Petitioner was then tried in Sessions Case No. 401 of 1975 in the Sessions Court at Bombay and was convicted for offences punishable under sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. for which he was respectively sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The said judgment was passed against the petitioner...
Sneth Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC340Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order in appeal bearing No. S/49-99/83-L dated 16.8.83 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a small compass; The appellants imported 45 cases of Olive Oil and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 10(4). The Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the import was for stock and sale and that the appellants are not the actual users. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, who held the adjudication ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Asstt. Collector by holding that the import of olive oil cannot be allowed under the OGL not only because the importers are not engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic or unani medicines but because the item is canalised as per para 5 of App. 9 of AM. 83 Policy.3. During the hearing of this appeal ...
Ornelas Andrade Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT317Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order-in-appeat bearing No. S/49-36/83L dated 25.5.83 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. A brand new motor cycle which the appellant claimed as his un-accompanied baggage was confiscated by the Asstt. Collector by his order dated 18.1.83 firstly on the ground that there was no proof that the motor cycle in question was the un-accompanied baggage of the appellant; secondly on the ground that the import was unauthorised in as much as it was not covered by any import licence or CCP. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirmed the order of confiscation.3. During the hearing of this appeal Shri Harish Raichandani submitted that the authorities below committed an error in taking the view that the motor cycle was not the un-accompanied baggage of the appellant. He urged that the production of landing certificate was to claim free baggage allowances and non-production of landing certificate - would not e...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›