Mumbai Court December 1989 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)(28)LC564Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No.SKM-994/89-Bombay-II dated 17.2.1988, wherein the Collector (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the demand issued and confirmed covers beyond a period of six months as laid down under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Shri S.P. Prabhu, the learned JDR, contended that the show cause notice is dated 2.6.1987 and the credit was taken on 13.7.1987 during the the material period there was no time limit prescribed under Rule 57(1) of the Rules. Under this rule, recoveries of irregularly availed MODVAT credit can be made without any time limit. This rule was amended only subsequently provided for the time limit as laid down under Section 11A. Hence he pleaded that the order of the Collector (Appeals) allowing the appeal of the respondents in setting aside th...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Mrs. Bakhtawar B. Chenoy
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD739(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against the order of the C.W.T. (A) for the assessment year 1981-82. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to reduce the net wealth by an amount of Rs. 1,12,203 which represents the assessee's share in the development rebate reserve of M/s. Associated Breweries and Distilleries.2. The assessee became a partner in M/s. Associated Breweries and Distilleries with effect from 1-10-1979 by partnership deed dated 21-10-1979 with 10% share in the profit and losses. The firm had development rebate reserve of Rs. 11,22,032 which was created in assessment year 1976-77. At that time, the partners of the firm were: On and with effect from 1-10-1979, Miss S.M. Irani retired from the firm and the assessee became a partner.As the development rebate reserve was to be retained in the books of account for 8 years as required under the I.T. Act, no entrie...
Smt. Chhaya Laxman Sapkale and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1989
Reported in: 1990(1)BomCR701; (1989)91BOMLR386; 1991CriLJ398
ORDER1. This Criminal Revision Application by the accused in Criminal Case No. 437/P of 1987 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 35th Court, V.T., Bombay. The Assistant Public Prosecutor sought leave to withdraw from the prosecution. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the chances of likely failure of the case is not a valid ground for withdrawal of the prosecution. The accused impugn the Order.2. The applicants on the one hand and the respondent No. 2, the complainant on the other are neighbours. On a trivial quarrel over drying clothes in the gallery, there was a scuffle between the applicants on the one hand and the members of the family of the respondent No. 2 on the other. Then physical assault followed. A tooth of the applicant No. 2 was dislocated and uprooted. The applicant No. 1 filed the complaint at the Railway Police Station at V.T. accusing the respondent No. 2 of having committed offences punishable under sections 323, 325, ...
Arun Auto Spinning and Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC210Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) considering the identical issue and hence they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts for purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below: The appellants are the manufacturers of spring of iron or steel. For manufacture of this final product, they received inputs viz. steel flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness from outside. They had applied for availment of modvat credit in respect of the inputs and the permission for availment of modvat credit was granted. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance under order F. No. B. 22/5/86-TRU dated 7-4-1986, issued in pursuance of the 2nd proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, allowed deemed credit in respect of inputs purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after 1-3-1986 with the manufacturers of the final product. In their case the deemed credit in respect of the steel flats exceeding ...
Arun Auto Spring and Manufacturing Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC458Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) considering the identical issue and hence they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. The brief facts for purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below: The appellants are the manufacturers of spring of iron or steel. For manufacture of this final product, they received inputs viz. steel flats exceeding 5 mm in thickness from outside. They had applied for availment of modvat credit in respect of the inputs and the permission for availment of modvat credit was granted. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance under Order F.No. B.22/5/86-TRU dated 7-4-1986, issued in pursuance of the 2nd proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, allowed deemed credit in respect of inputs purchased from outside and lying in stock on or after 1-3-1986 with the manufacturers of the final product. In their case the deemed credit in respect of the steel flats exceeding 5 ...
income-tax Officer Vs. Oricon (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD645(Mum.)
1. This is a departmental appeal against the order of the CIT(A) granting investment allowance under Section 32A of the I.T. Act to the assessee. It is contended on behalf of the Department that the findings of the CIT(A) are not correct. It is an admitted fact that the assessee is engaged in construction activity. Inviting our attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Oricon (P.) Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 407 in claim of investment allowance upheld in the case of the assessee engaged in construction activity, as the relevant Finance Act referred to manufacture or production of an article or a thing not excepted in the Eleventh Schedule in the assessee's own case where the Court had held that the assessee could not be regarded as an industrial company having regard to the activities carried on by it viz.construction, the findings of the CIT(A) would appear to be erroneous.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, relies on the order of the CIT(A).3. We h...
Shankar Dagadu Bakade and ors. Vs. Bajirao Balaji Darwatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1989
Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR38; (1990)92BOMLR160
Sharad Manohar, J.Why Rule was issued in the petition at all.1. Rule in this petition was issued not because the Court found any mistake in the final order passed by the lower Court, but because the point raised by the petitioners was one which was likely to give rise to confusion and the provisions of section 22 read with section 2(e)(v) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, was likely to be mis-used or abused by the land trespassers having mischief in mind. In fact this position was made clear even while issuing notice to the respondent plaintiff.When the Rule came up for final hearing Mr. Shah, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, stated that there existed some binding judgment which had thrown light upon the interpretation of section 2(e)(v) of the said act. Several adjournments have been taken for production of the said judgment. But no such judgment has been produced till this date. The result is that this Court's view ...
General Instruments Consortium Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: (1992)LC413Tri(Mum.)bai
1. By the present miscellaneous application, the applicants, the original appellants in Appeal No. C/628/88 Bom, have sought for rectification of mistake or modification of this Bench order No. 343 & 344/89 WRB dt. 25-4-1989.2. The applicants filed appeal No. C/628/88 Bom against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering confiscation of the goods imported, giving them option under Section 125 of the Customs Act to pay, in lieu of such confiscation, fine of Rs. 75,000/- and also imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In the appeal against the said order, the appellants raised the following grounds: (a) There is no justification for this view of the Additional Collector. For were that be so, the foreign suppliers would not have written to the Customs Department on 8th September, 1987, informing the Department that the goods had been wrongly shipped and therefore should be returned. (b) The foreign suppliers are prep...
Sau. Anuradha R. Kshirsagar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR644; 1991CriLJ410
1. Two complainants have come up in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on 31-1-1986 in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 1984.2. The facts giving rise to this prosecution may be briefly stated as follows : Mrs. Anuradha R. Kshirsagar and Mrs. Malti Madhao Pawade (the complainants in Criminal case No. 11 of 1983 and No. 12 of 1983 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola) along with other ladies were the teachers working under the Zilla Parishad, Akola. On 30th October, 1982, a meeting of all the teachers, including the lady teachers, was convened at about 11 a.m. by the Assistant Education Officer, Mrs. Kamal Gadekar. While this meeting we going on and while Mrs. Gadekar was addressing the meeting, the accused Madhukar Mahadeorao More was standing outside the door of the hall. It is alleged that a request was made by him, to the chair, for permission to address the meeting, but this request was not accepted. It is alleged that the ac...
Ashwini Kumar Govardhandas Gandhi and anr. Vs. Gangadhar Dattatraya Ga ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)91BOMLR749; 1990MhLJ18
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This is a reference by a learned Single Judge in Second Appeal No. 48 of 1988. The point referred is as follows :Whether the provisions of Clause 13(1)(a) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 are applicable to the present case?2. The controversy arose in the following circumstances : The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the appellant No. 1 Ashwini kumar had obtained a lease of the suit tenements under the rent note, July 31, 1967 (Exhibit 27). He wanted the premises for his personal use and occupation and he, therefore, applied to the Rent Controller, Akola, for permission to give a notice determining the lease. Appellant No. 1, Ashwini kumar renounced his character as a tenant and respondent, therefore, filed a pursis (Exhibit 30) praying that the proceedings before the Rent Controller be filed as appellant No. 1 has renounced the tenancy and the Court, therefore, would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »