Mumbai Court January 1990 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. S.B.S. Organics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT475Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. GSM 15-3/89-BRD dated 28.10.88 filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara.2. The facts of the case for purpose of disposal of the appeal are that the factory premises of the respondents were checked by the Central Excise officers. On verification of physical stock, the officers found 15 bags of pigment dyes weighing 300 kgs lying in the finishing department duly manufactured but not accounted for in the RG-I register. In the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Asstt.Collector, the goods were ordered confiscation, penalties were imposed on the respondents and also ordered that the goods should be removed on payment of appropriate duty after due accounting. The respondents took up the matter in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who allowed the appeal of the respondents on the ground that the show cause notice alleges, fraud, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts on the part o...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Agro Transformers Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1992)LC511Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. SKM-988/89(B-I) (File No. V-2(85 CETA) 1032/88 to 1035/88) dated 11-5-1989.2. Brief facts of the case as revealed by Shri K.M. Mondal, the learned SDR, can be stated as below: 3. The respondents were directed to reverse the MODVAT credit availed of by four show cause notices issued by the Supdt. under Rule 57(1) of the Rules. The particulars of the show cause notices are as below: Date of show Receipt of Period Date of filing cause notice show cause notice covered of RT-12 Returns He contended that in all these cases, show cause notices have been issued within six months from the date of filing of RT-12 Returns as laid down under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and pointed out to the provision of the relevant date mentioned under Section 11A of the Act and contended that whereunder the receipt of monthly return showing particulars of duty paid ...
Collector of Cus. and Ex. Vs. Jawandmal Dhannamal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC388Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. E/282/89-Bom. is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-245/89-RK (File No. V-2(28 CETA) 772/88) dt. 21-2-89.2. Appeal No. E/735/89-Bom. is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay bearing No.GSM-1564/89-RKT.3. Appeal No. E/734/89-Bom. is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay bearing No.GSM-1604/89-RKT (File No. V-2(Ch. 32) 3074/88-RKT) dated 31-7-89.4. Appeal No. E/580/89-Bom. is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay bearing No.SKM-1210/89-B-II (File No. V-2(87 Ch.) 2155/88) dated 5-6-1989.5. Appeal No. E/452/89-Bom. is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) bearing No. SKM-375/89-B-II (File No. V-2(Ch. 72) 2694/88) dated 19-4-89.6. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed by the Department against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay noted agai...
Sudhakar Vs. the Additional Registrar, High Court, Bombay and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR492]; (1991)IILLJ191Bom
Dhabe, J.1. The Petitioner, who is an employee of this Court, has challenged the punishment of reduction in rank permanently meted out to him by the Additional Registrar, i.e., the respondent No. 1, by his order dated 29th August, 1985. The appeal filed against the said order being dismissed by the Honourable the Administrative Judge of this Court, as communicated to the petitioner by the Additional Registrar by his letter dated 4th December, 1986, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court. At the time of the admission of this petition on 10th April, 1987, the rule is restricted only to the question of punishment. Hence what has to be considered in the instant writ petition is whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is legal and proper and whether it is imposed by an authority which has power to inflict the same.2. Briefly, the facts necessary to consider the question of punishment, are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 26th March, 1985 for...
Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Pukharaj Nathumal Oswal and Central ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(27)LC177(Bombay)
S.M. Daud, J.1. The complainant to a prosecution under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, takes exception to the sentence imposed upon the respondent/accused by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ichalkaranji.2. On 12 February 1980, the accused was apprehended by the Superintendent of Customs, CPP, Kolhapur. Found on the person of the accused were various articles of foreign make. Accused could not produce a valid authorisation for their import, acquisition or possession. Therefore, the articles were attached. Adjudication proceedings were initiated and later on a prosecution was launched against the accused. Before the Magistrate the accused pleaded guilty and prayed for a lenient view. The Magistrate accepted the plea holding that having regard to the unblemished past of the accused and his youth, it was not necessary to impose a deterrent sentence upon him. For this reason, the accused was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1500/-. N...
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kisandas Sitaldas Dayalani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1990
Reported in: 1990(27)LC178(Bombay)
S.M. Daud, J.1. These are cross appeals emanating from the decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 6, Pune, in a prosecution ascribing to Kisandas Sitaldas Dayalani, the commission of offences punishable under Sections 135 of the Customs Act and 85 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. The prosecution case was that acting on information, the Police along with Panchas kept a watch at Govind Halwai Chowk at Pune. This was on 31 August 1969. This party saw Dayalani going along with one person later identified as Oswal. Sighting the Police party, Dayalani and Oswal tried to discard their shoes and flee. The Police party however managed to apprehend the two of them and took them to Subhansha Police Chowky. In the search of the shoes worn by Dayalani were found gold chips indicating that they were of foreign origin. The chips were worth Rs. 10,250/-. Dayalani and the attached property were made over to the Central Excise Officers for further enquiry. It was found that the sei...
Agarwal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC250Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The present Reference Application, filed under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, seeks a reference to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, over the Order No. 1522-23/88 WRB dt. 10.10.88 of this Tribunal in Appeals Nos. ED(T)(BOM.) 55/81 and E/123/87-Bom. on the following 14 points : (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty is in- valid? (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal seriously erred in relying on no evidence or irrelevant evidence or inadmissible evidence or partly relevant and partly irrelevant evidence? (3) Whether the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the shoulders of the Applicants when it was for the Department to prove the case against the applicants to the hilt? (4) Whether the Tribunal seriously erred in relying on the evidence of the witnesses in examination-in-chief, when they had realised from the same in cross-examination? (5) Whether the Tribunal had flouted the principles of C...
Regal Investment and Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1990
Reported in: [1990]33ITD68(Mum)
ORDER1. The only point involved in this appeal pertains to the deduction available to the assessee under section 80M of the Act.2. The assessee is a company and is partner in the firm of M/s. Zash Traders having 35% share in the profit/loss therein. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant previous year ended on 31-5-1983.3. In its return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80M of the Act on dividend aggregating to Rs. 69,747, which consists of dividend of Rs. 10,500 received from the companies directly and dividend of Rs. 59,247 received from the firm, as its share. The ITO, however, gave deduction under section 80M of the Act on Rs. 53,614 in the following manner :-'It is further seen that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80M on dividend of Rs. 69,747 which consist of dividend of Rs. 10,500 received by the assessee and dividend of Rs. 59,247 received from the firm as his share. The assessees share from the firm is declared at Rs. 93,611 ...
Tata Consulting Services Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC68Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. S/49-27/84 Misc. dated 28-2-1984.2. Shri Nambiar requested for adjournment. However, after hearing Shri Mondal and perusing the records, we felt that the appeal can be disposed of without the presence of the appellants and accordingly we proceed to dispose of the appeal without granting the adjournment.3. The undisputed facts are that the appellants imported a consignment consisting of 4 packages, out of which one item is electric typewriter.In the place of electric typewriter, 60 pcs. of Print Wheels were received and electric typewriter was missing. The non receipt of the electric typewriter from this consignment was brought to the notice of supplier, who, after due verification, informed that there was an interchange of consignment, which had occurred due to mistake. The suppliers, therefore assured to replace the wrong consignment and requested the appellants to re-ship the goods. The wrong cons...
Mumbai Textile Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT321Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the orders of the authorities below holding that the refund claim filed by the appellants is time barred.2. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal can be stated as below: The appellants claimed refund of certain excess amount paid in the month of July, 1985. The date of payment being on 20-7-85 and the refund claim was filed on 28-1-86, beyond the period of six months laid down under Section 11B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, the same was rejected on the ground of time bar.3. Shri Acharya, on behalf of the appellants contended that they have pointed out the excess payment submitted RT-12 returns in the month of July, 1985 as below: "Grey goods received from Gold Mohur Mills under AR-3A for processing and delivered the same on behalf of Gold Mohur Mills to National Handloom Development Corporation Limited on payment of duty. Through over-sight duty was calculated at Rs. 7.15 per kg instead of Rs. 3.40 per kg. The goods we...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »