Mumbai Court August 1988 Judgments
Solder Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC89Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original bearing No.S/10-78/83D dated 25.5.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The subject of challenge is the order of confiscation of 138 bales Hydraulics Hose and the fine of Rs. 75,000/- levied in lieu of confiscation.3. Shri Biradar appearing for the Appellants contended that what was imported are not rubber hose but they are articles of steel and therefore the Collector committed an error in holding that the goods imported were banned item. In support of his contention, Shri Biradar relied on the steel contents of the hose. He submitted the steel wire content is 1.22 kgs. per meter as against rubber content of 0.96 kg.per meter. The weight of the steel being more than the rubber the goods should have been considered as made of steel and clearance should have been allowed under O.G.L under Appendix 10 (2) of the Policy A.M. 83.Shri Biradar also placed reliance on the catalogue of Dunlop Hydraulic Hose. Ltd. 4. Finally...
Tag this Judgment!R.D. Mehta and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC389Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-appeal No. S/49-58/83GC (Bombay) dated 30-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the appellant firm was granted a Gold Dealer's Licence which according to them, was received by them on 7-6-1982. On November, 26, 1982, they made an application for renewal of the said licence for a period of three years ending with 31 -12-1985. This renewal was rejected after issue of show cause notice by the Deputy Collector on the ground that the turnover between 7-6-1982 to 31-10-1982 was less than the turnover prescribed under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969 (for short the Rules). On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeal) confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector.3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Deshmukh contended that the orders passed by both the authorities are erroneous in law. They get the licence...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)74CTR(Bom)10
Desai, J.1. The question raised by the Department is as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee's appeal on the ground that the delay in reopening the excess profits tax proceedings not been properly explained in spite of the fact that there was no time limit for initiation of the action provided under the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 ?'2. Rule was issued in this application on March 11, 1987. The Tribunal has dealt with this aspect of the matter from paragraph 8 onwards of its appellate order and had come to the conclusion, following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chimanram Motilal Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT : [1983]140ITR809(Bom) , that there was inordinate delay and hence the Department could not be permitted to reopen the excess profits tax assessment. Excess profits tax assessment sought to be reopened pertained to the year 1944-45.3. Although the income-tax proceedings were earlier completed, they were ...
Tag this Judgment!Kondaji Shivram Waje Vs. Govinda Ananda Waje (Since Deceased) by His H ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)BomCR163
Sharad Manohar, J.1. All that this petition reflects upon is the frantic & desperate bid of the petitioner to delay and protract the litigation and to bring the contesting respondents to the end of their wits.2. It is the suit filed by the respondent who is admittedly the owner of the suit land, for injunction restraining the present petitioner (hereafter, the defendant) that he himself was in possession of the suit land as the plaintiff's tenant. He came out with this pleading invited an issue from the Civil Court that he was a tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land, got the issue referred to the Tenancy Court, contested the consequent proceeding before the Tahsildar, dragged and drove the owner/plaintiff to the Dy. Collector in appeal, then to the Revenue Tribunal in revision, back to the Tahsildar, on remand & once again to the Dy. Collector in appeal. The Dy. Collector examined the entire evidence with noticeably unusual carefulness and found that the petitioner was ne...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Sadashiv Astikar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR375; 1988MhLJ936
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The learned Special Judge, Nasik, in Special Case No. 1 of 1981, by his judgment and order dated 1st July, 1981 convicted the appellant accused for an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also convicted for an offence punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. It was the prosecution case that complainant Balasaheb Shinde (P.W. 1) was carrying on wholesale business in country liquor at Manmad as one of the partners of M/s P.B. Shinde & Company. He was to receive a certain quota of country liquor f...
Tag this Judgment!Kishanchand J. Bhavnani (Huf) Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD383(Mum.)
1. This Miscellaneous Application was heard along with other 116 Miscellaneous applications as the point involved was identical and all are being decided by this common order.2. We shall deal with the facts in M.A. No. 90/Bom/1987 which arises out of WTA Nos. 1203 to 1207/Bom/84 and WTA No. 1243/ Bom/84. The order of the Tribunal is dated 24-11-1986. The question involved was valuation of shares of a private limited company. It was common ground that valuation was to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The value determined by the Wealth-tax Officer under the said provision was higher than the value returned by the assessee. The difference arose because of the fact that different treatment was given to the amount of advance tax paid by the company in the computations made by the assessee and the Wealth-tax Officer. The assessee in his computation, while not treating as an asset the advance tax paid by the company and shown as an asset in ...
Tag this Judgment!New India Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(19)LC188(Bombay); 1988(37)ELT547(Bom)
1. This petition makes a claim of refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,25,34,988.97 Ps. paid by the petitioners under protest. The petitioners are manufacturers of photographic printing papers. They effect sales of their aforesaid product through Agfa Gvearte India Limited under agreement of distributorship. The said Agfa are their sole distributors.2. By a notice dated 8th May, 1974 (Ex.'A'), Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise called upon the petitioners to show cause why the price list submitted by the petitioners should not be rejected and why excise duty should not be collected on the sale price of the distributors Agfa to their customers in the market. By order dated the 30th December, 1974 (Ex.B) the respondent No. 2 levied duty on the price charged by Agfa. By a notice dated 31st January, 1975 the petitioners were directed to pay the differential excise duty for the period 1st March 1974 to 20th May 1974 amounting to Rs. 99,631/- which amount was pai...
Tag this Judgment!Caetanoe Lourence and ors. Vs. Additional Dy. Collector (Land Acquisit ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR498
G.F. Couto, J. 1. By a Notification dated 18th February, 1982, the appropriate Government notified under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') that the land described in its Schedule was likely to be needed for the public purposes of parks, recreational and other development of the Mira Mar area and therefore, by another Notification dated 18th February, 1985 declared under section 6 of the Act, that said land was actually required for the Public purpose specified therein.Petitioners alleging to have interest as owners and tenants in some portions of the land sought to be required, challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the aforesaid Notification and Declaration on several grounds. They however, restricted their challenge at the time of the hearing to only three grounds.2. Mr. Rebello, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has indeed confined his attack to three propositions. He first ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasant Govindji Kotak and ors. Vs. Damayanti Hariram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1988
Reported in: 1988(4)BomCR84
H. Suresh, J.1. 'Being all fashioned of the self same dust,Let us be merciful as well as just'. H. W. Long fellow.This is the rule of life and this is the rule of Law. Justice tempered with mercy. That is what Judge Chaudhary did. Strange, the Trustees of a charitable trust, the petitioners, find fault in this.2.The petitioners filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court being Suit No. 617 of 1985 as against the defendants for a declaration that they are trespassers and for possession and for the mesne profits etc. The plaintiffs are the trustees of a charitable Trust which owns a chawl the rooms in which are to be used by the poor men and woman of Lohana caste, at the monthly subscription of Re. 1/-. One Kamlaben was occupying room No. 26, the suit premises, in the said chawl. She died on November 9, 1984. It is the plaintiff's case that Kamlaben was staying alone in the said premises and, therefore, on her death the plaintiffs thought that they could put a lock on the said premises. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Sakharam Dravid Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1988
Reported in: 1988(3)BomCR555
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition invokes sections 401, 407 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code) and Article 227 of the Constitution to quash an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune, and for good measure, to get Criminal Complaint No. 9 of 1986 transferred from that Magistrate's file.2. Respondents 1 and 29 viz. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd., and Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., (KBL & KPL) are companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The other respondents barring the State of Maharashtra, are the Directors and Officers of the two companies. They and the companies are being prosecuted for the commission of offences punishable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (CESTA) r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Evidence before charge has been led and several witnesses examined. In the course of their depositions these witnesses have referred to the seizure or take over of various documents from the custody or control of the offices and officers of the KBL ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »