Mumbai Court December 1989 Judgments
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. K.R. Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC357Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid appeals are filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II, against a single order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, bearing No. SKM-67 to 72/B-II-344 to 349/88 (File No. V-2 (68) 2199 to 2204/88) dated 13-1-1989.2. Brief fact for the purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below.3. The respondents herein paid duty only on the job work charges and when the RT-12 returns were filed for the relevant period, the Supdt.made endorsements on the RT-12 returns pointing out short levy on this ground and directed the respondents to make the payment. The respondents went in appeal against the RT-12 assessment before the Collector (Appeals), who, in the aforesaid order, held that the lower authority has not followed the procedure under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hence held that the demands raised by the Supdt. on RT-12 returns are not sustainable in law. He, therefore, set aside the demands and allowed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-27-1989
Reported in: (1991)LC65Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid appeals arise out of the orders of the Collector (Appeals) listed above against each. All these appeals arise out of the common issue excepting some minor variations which are discussed individually and hence they were heard together and we propose to dispose of through this common order. It is needless to elaborate the facts of the case in detail. The appellants manufacture cotton yarn, non-cellulosic spun yarn and cellulosic yarn and they consume these varieties of yarn captively in the manufacture of fabrics. They had been paying duty on these yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics till the Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 16-10-80 reported in 1981 ELT 887 allowed the Writ Petition challenging the levy of Central Excise duty on yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics. Thereafter, the appellants stopped paying duty on yarn captively consumed. The department have taken up the matter by way of SLP before the Supreme Court [It is repo...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Pampasar Distillery Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-26-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD657(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by the department are directed against the separate, but identical, orders of the first appellate authority relating to the assessment years 1980-81,1981-82 and 1982-83.2. The solitary and common issue agitated in these three appeals relates to the allowability of deduction on account of interest claimed to be payable on a liability taken over by the assessee. The assessee had taken over the distillery division of M/s. India Sugar & Refineries Ltd. for consideration of Rs. 33 lacs. According to the terms of the agreement to purchase, the assessee had taken over all the assets and liabilities of the vendor in respect of the distillery division. The liability relating to the excess realisation of sugar sales amounting to Rs. 33,71,042 was there and continues to be there even now. The purchase of the distillery division was made by the assessee on 1-10-1978. The assessee's claim before the I.T.O. was that it was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12.5 per ce...
Tag this Judgment!Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT322(Bom)
Desai, Member (J).1. This appeal can be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly the appeal is admitted. Respondents waive service. Appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The order of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal is one refusing issue of Rule on the basis that the order of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) is a discretionary order and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to interfere with the exercise of discretion.3. We are aware that in number of matters this Court has considered the orders of deposit passed by CEGAT. We have been pointed out that in the instant case the CEGAT has considered only financial hardship of the appellants before it whereas in many matters merits of the appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in reducing the quantum of deposit or waiving it altogether.4. It has been submitted before us that the Appellants are prepared to give bank guarantee in respect of the full amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Tide Water Detergent Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1989
Reported in: 1992(40)LC530(Bombay)
S.C. Pratap, J.1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.2. This petition challenges the legality and validity of two orders both dated 23rd October 1989, part of Exhibits E & F respectively. Turning to these two orders, one finds the same to be as short and cryptic as ever and passed purely and simply upon an earlier adjudication order dated 30th September 1989. Save and except placing reliance simpliciter upon the earlier order dated 30th September 1989, there is absolutely no independent reason in support of the presently impugned orders dated 23rd October 1989.3. Now, against the earlier order dated 30th September 1989 the petitioners have preferred appeal to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Along with the said appeal an application for stay has also been filed. And I understand that both the appeal and the application are pending before the Appellate Authority.4. Mr. Vahanvati appearing for the petitioners states that against the presently impugned...
Tag this Judgment!Arjandas Takandas Kataria Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: 1990LC556(Bombay); 1990(47)ELT520(Bom)
1. The 1st Petitioner is a partner of the reconstituted firm of Messrs Takandas H. Kataria. The said firm, as then constituted, had in 1971 purchased from Respondents No. 4 on high-sea basis, 28 cases of C.N. sheets. The said consignment was cleared by the Clearing Agents of this firm on 17th August 1972. The said goods were subsequently consumed by the said firm in the course of their business. The 2nd Petitioners are the firm of Messrs Takandas H. Kataria as reconstituted on 31st December 1974.2. By a Show Cause Notice dated 21st May 1973 under Section 28 of the Customs Act Respondent No. 1 called upon Respondents Nos. 4 to pay a sum of Rs. 31,199,23 towards short-levy of duty. The clearing agents of the old firm replied to the show cause notice on 31st May 1973. After adjudication an Order confirming the demand came to be passed on 4th January 1974. The Appeal filed by the clearing agents as against that Order was dismissed on 24th January 1979. The Petitioners applied for a copy of...
Tag this Judgment!Orient Syntex Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(47)ELT321(Bom)
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.2. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs on the ground of delay and without going into the merits. Against the Collector's order the petitioners preferred appeal to the Tribunal i.e. CEGAT. The Tribunal declined stay of the order of deposit of the disputed amount of Rs. 2,07,000/-.3. I have heard Counsel on either side. I have also through the order of the Collector as also that of the Tribunal. There is no dispute that there was delay in filing the appeal before the Collector. This, however, is not a case where the Collector should have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and without going into the merits. The Collector could as well have put the petitioners on terms on the question of condonation of delay. In matters of delay, there is normally some sort of negligence on the part of the litigant but payment of costs to the other side, by and large, meets the ends of justice...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR425
M.S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in an offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal code. Similar application was made before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, but it has been rejected by the said Court on 6-12-1989.2. The petitioners 1 and 2, who are the real brothers, are coming before the Court with the case that they are persons of status in the society and they have been falsely implicated due to political rivallary. The petitioner 1 Dilip is a Municipal Councillor at Kamgaon. Both these petitioners are the businessmen having their business at Khamgaon. It is their contention that they are active workers of the Congress (I) party and the petitioner 1 is also the head of the local gymnacium called Chandanshesh Akhada. It is also their case that there is a rival group of BJP and Shiv Sena which are controlling the other gymnacium called Hanuman...
Tag this Judgment!Harmal Panchakroshi Shikshan Mandal Vs. State of Goa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1989
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR114
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the recognition/permission granted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the respondent No. 4 for starting a middle school in the year 1985 and classes VIII and IX in the years 1988 and 1989. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the recognition/permission granted to respondent No. 4 has been in violation of Rule 3(i) of the Grant-in-aid Code (hereinafter referred to as 'Old Rules'), second and third clauses of the Third Proviso to Rule 31(3) and Rules 37(ii) and 37(xx) of the Goa, Oman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'New Rules'). The Goa, Daman and Diu school Education Act, 1984 under which the New Rules were framed will hereinafter be referred to as the 'New Act'. Both the New Act and Rules came into force with effect from 22nd November, 1986.2. In its affidavit-in-reply, the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the res...
Tag this Judgment!Annaji S/O Ghulbaji Dalvi Vs. Manohar Bhikulaji Maheshwari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1989
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR690; 1991(1)MhLj463
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the orders of the Tenancy Courts dismissing his application for purchase of the suit fields under section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short 'the Tenancy Act').2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was inducted as tenant by the respondent-landlord in 1977-78 in field Survey No. 94/2 area 11.73 acres, field Survey No. 90 area). 99 acres and field survey No. 165/1 area 2.66 acres of village Suwardhara, Tahsil Ramtek, Distt. Nagpur. He claimed that he was also a tenant of the said fields in 1978-79 and 1979-80. The lease money agreed to was Rs. 450/- per year. Since he was inducted as a tenant after the relevant date i.e. 1-4-1963, he claimed that he had a right to purchase the suit lands under section 50 of the Tenanacy Act. He therefore, filed an application thereunder on 20-3-1988 for purchase of the suit lands since the respondent - landlord did not accept his offer to purchase the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »