Mumbai Court June 1990 Judgments
Dipen Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC242Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay bearing No. S/49-210/83L dated 1-3-1984 issued on 20-3-1984. S/10-157/33J 2. The appellants herein imported a 'Honda Motor Car' without wheels and tyres and claimed clearance as a sample in terms of para 146 of the Import Policy AM 1982 against a REP licence dated 29-9-1981 revalidated upto 30-6-1983. The Department objected to its clearance as sample and held that import of motor car is governed by a distinct provision of the Policy and it can be imported only by a person eligible to import the same as laid down in the Policy and, that too, on getting the specific Customs clearance permit or licence. In the proceedings initiated by the Dy. Collector of Customs, the said motor vehicle was ordered absolute confiscation and it was also construed that the appellants had deliberately imported the car contrary to the provisions of the Import Policy and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also impo...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhu Meghraj Vidhya Vs. R.D. Tyagi and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: 1991CriLJ236
Kurdukar, J.1. The 1st Respondent on being subjectively satisfied that the criminal activities of one Appu Harpal Meghraj Vidhya are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, on 9th March 1990, issued an order of detention under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to preventing him i.e. Appu alias Harpal Meghraj Vidhya the detenu, from engaging in criminal activities which are likely to disturb the public order. The petitioner is a brother of the detenu and he has filed the present petition challenging the legality and correctness of the order of detention. Order of detention came to be served on the detenu on 10th March 1990.2. In the grounds of detention, the Detaining Authority has relied upon four incidents which are referred to in paragraphs 2(a) to 2(d). At the outset, it may be stated that the four incidents in question took place in Ulhasnagar area in Camp Nos. 2 and 3. The detenu is also resident of Ulhasnagar and is residing in Camp No. 3.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Dia-ichi Karkaria Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT341(Bom)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Miss Shah for respondents waives service. Heard counsel.2. The grievance of the petitioners is about failure of respondent No. 2 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners and in respect of which hearing was given in February 1987. The petitioners complain that the appeal has remained undisposed for a period of over three years and the petitioners are deprived of the relief sought.The petitioners have imported 'polypropylene Glycol 2020' and 'polypropylene Glycol 1010' in September 1978. The products were assessed to basic Customs duty and to additional duty. In appeal from the assessment, the Appellate Collector of Bombay upheld the petitioners' claim for classification of the goods under different heading but rejected the claim in respect of additional duty. The Central Government then moved Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and by judgment dated December 20, 1984 the Tribunal upheld the claim of the petitioners. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC491Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. GSM-2009/89-AHD (File No. V-2 (52Ch)13/Ahd/89) dated 5-10-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Appeal No. 847/89 Bom has been moved on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, while the other appeal bearing No.E/772/89Bom has been moved by M/s Mihir Textiles Ltd. against the same order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals).3. Since both the appeals are against the same order and the facts and issues involved covered by the single order were argued together and hence disposed of by this common order.4. Shri K.M. Mondal, the Learned S.D.R., on behalf of the appellant-Collector, gave the brief facts relating to their appeal as below: 5. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, adjudicated 19 show cause notices issued for the purpose of recovery of duty on yarn captively consumed by the respondents mills during the various peri...
Tag this Judgment!Kuldipsingh Amamath Bagga Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT543Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No.Custom/6/1981 dated 4-3- 1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur.2. Heard Shri U. C. Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri C. P. Arya, the Learned SDR for the respondent.3. On 25-11-1981 one Ranjankumar was apprehended alongwith the goods of foreign origin worth Rs. 83,620/- and on recording of his statement the said Ranjankumar stated that the goods belong to the present appellant as well as one Mr. Bedi Singh. On the department summoning the appellant arid recording the statement, he has given the completely exculpatory statement disowning any connection with the Ranjankumar or with the seized goods. The departmental authorities however disbelieved the contention raised and placing reliance on what Shri Ranjankumar had stated, held the appellant also liable to penalty.4. Shri U. C. Chatterjee, the Ld. Advocate read out the following observation in the order: "From the ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh B. JaIn Vs. P.K.P. Nair and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: [1992]194ITR148(Bom)
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. The petitioner had filed his return for the assessment year 1982-83 and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner passed an assessment order assessing him on income to the extent of Rs. 60,60,234 on which the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 4,29,000 by way of income-tax. He then preferred an appeal against the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The said appeal was allowed and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer revised the assessable income of the petitioner for the assessment year 1982-83 and the revised assessment order was passed computing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 21,948 on which the income-tax liability was only Rs. 2,294. Accordingly, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 4,26,706. It appears that, while forwarding the revised assessment order for the assessment year 1982-83, the Income-tax Officer also simultaneously issued a notice for finalisation of the proceedings for the assessment for the year 1983-84. ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Maharashtra Vs. Nainprakash S/O. Tularam Adalkhiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR230
A.A. Desai, J.1. The State by this appeal has questioned the correctness and legality of finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, mainly on the ground that entire approach and appreciation were grossly erroneous and hence the finding in question resulted in miscarriage of justice. On the other hand the respondent while supporting the finding has urged that the reasoning as adopted and findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, are just and after proper appreciating on the material as placed on record. By inviting attention to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Tota Singh and another v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1083, we are reminded that unless the findings impugned are manifestly illegal and the conclusion as drawn can only be described as perverse, interference in appeal is totally unwarran...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Industries Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR472
S.M. Daud, J.1. This is plaintiff's appeal taking exception to the dismissal of a motion taken out by it to restrain respondents from entering on and taking possession of plot bearing No. 123-CD, Kandivli Industrial Estate, Bombay 400067.2. The suit plot of land was given under the agreement at Ex. A to the plaintiff by the Government represented by respondent No. 3. The agreement is described as a thirty years lease of the plot of land. Paintiff was permitted to put up industrial sheds on the plot which sheds were not to be used for any purpose other than as industrial sheds. Clauses IX and X of Ex. A are important, and the first restrained the plaintiff for sub-dividing or disposing of without the permission of the lessor 'any part of the said plot'. The second clause afore-mentioned prohibited the plaintiff from assigning, under-letting ' the said plot or any part thereof to anybody without the previous consent in writing of the Collector etc.' Plaintiff erected some structures on t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaurao Pandurang Raut and anr. Vs. Ziblabai Wd/O Shankarrao Hiwanj an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1990
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR979
M.S. Deshpande, J.1. This matter has come before us, as the Single Bench of this Court in its judgment delivered on 20th November, 1987 found that the position of law regarding the extent of the finality under Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 on which there were two conflicting views taken by two Single Judges, should be settled, the Single Bench held that the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal otherwise called for no interference and the writ petition would stand disposed of, in the light of the view that may be taken by the Division Bench.2. The facts as are apparent from the judgment of the Single Bench are that field survey No. 23, area 39.40 acres belonged to one Nanaji Deshmukh and was sold to 4 persons Balaji, Sitaram, Sheoram and Ghulba for Rs. 7500/- In a partition of the year 1925, 7.30 acres constituting survey No. 23/3 was allotted to Ghulba, survey No. 23/2 admeasuring 19.50 acres was allott...
Tag this Judgment!Rampurwalah Sharafaali Vs. L. Hainglianna, Secretary (Preventive Deten ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR271; 1991CriLJ190
B.U. Wahane, J.1. The purpose of enactment of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act is to deal effectively with persons engaged in smuggling and foreign exchange racketering who, owing to their large resources and influence have been posing a serious threat to the economy and thereby to the security of the nation. The enactment is preventive and not punitive. The provisions of preventive detention are extraordinary in nature. The detenu before us was detained under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in short COFEPOSA) by the Government of Maharashtra by its order dated 4-5-1989 at Annexure-I. The order was passed by Mr. L. Hainglianna, Secretary (Preventive Detention), to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, who authenticated the said order on behalf of the State Government. The impugned order has been made with a view to prevent the det...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »