Mumbai Court July 1990 Judgments
Associates Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT134Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original bearing No.S/10-112/84ACU dated 13-1-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay.2. The appellants imported the item UV - Visible Spectrophotometer (Double Beam) complete with accessories and spares covered by import invoices No. 46106 and 46113 dt. 25-10-1983 and comprising of Lamda 3B UV-VIS Spectrophotometer, RS-232C Accessory, I F Lamda 3 II software, PECUV software, Model 3600 Data Station, PR 100 Printer, Integrating sphere, paid of cells cite ca 10 mm patn length and MULT software and sought for clearance under OGL Appendix 2, Sr. No 25(6) of AM 84 of the Policy. The clearance was objected to by the department on the ground that the same was computer system and hence hit by the provisions of Para 22 of Chapter 5 of AM 83-84 Policy and the prior permission from the Department of Electronics had not been obtained and hence not importable under OGL. A show cause notice was waived and personal hearing w...
Tag this Judgment!Unitex Products Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD238(Mum.)
1. These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the learned CIT(A) dated 12-4-1988 in relation to the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84.2. The solitary and common issue raised in these appeals seeks the setting aside of the revised assessment orders passed under Section 147(b) of the IT Act and restoration of the original assessment orders.3. The assessee-company was the owner of a building known as 'Sapt Building' at Bombay. A portion of this building was requisitioned for occupation by the Government of India, Director General of Supplies and Disposals under the Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereunder and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 3,618 per month. This compensation was offered by the assessee as income from house property and was assessed in its hands as such in all the earlier assessment years as well as in the three assessment years under consideration in these appeals. The original assessment orders for the thre...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Western Mechanical Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Bom)79
Mrs. Sujata V. Menorah, J.1. Both these references pertain to the same assessee-company. The assessee-company carried on the business, inter alia, of manufacture and sale of heavy duty cranes. It claimed relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of profits arising, inter alia, from its manufacturing activity of making heavy duty cranes. For the assessment year 1972-73, which is the subject-matter of Income-tax Reference No. 127 of 1977, the claim of the assessee for relief under Section 80-I was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer. In appeal, however, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim of the assessee. In doing so, he differed from the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the assessee's case for the preceding assessment year 1971-72. The Tribunal had upheld the claim of the assessee. The Department has, therefore, come by way of a reference before us under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Income-tax Reference N...
Tag this Judgment!Sairabanu Mudassar Sayyed and anr. Vs. Mudassar Salar Sayyed and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1990
Reported in: I(1991)DMC343
I.G. Shah, J.1. Original Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this revision application to challenge the order passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, reversing the order of maintenance granted to original petitioner No. 1, the wife, at the rate of Rs. 125/- p.m. under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are as under:--It is an admitted position that the marriage of the original applicant No. 1 and the opponent took place on 12-6-1983 as per Muslim rites and, therefore, the original applicant No. 1 is a legally wedded wife of the respondent No. 1. It is also an admitted position that out of the said wedlock a minor son, the original applicant No. 2, is born. The respondent No. 1, it appears, ran away from the house of his father at Mysore and after spending some time at Ulhasnagar he ultimately started residing at Solapur. While he was at Solapur, he was working with one Abdul Kadar and then through the int...
Tag this Judgment!J.B. Advani and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT555Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.M-213/PN-21/85 dated 19-4-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No.V(27)18-155/R/82/7760 dt. 23-9-82 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nasik rejecting the refund claim for Rs. 15,797.38.2. Shri S.U. Jagesha, the Ld. consultant for the appellants, submitted that as per the prevailing rate of duty they were paying the duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem basic duty, plus 5% Adv. special excise of basic duty and Rs. 800/- per M.T. on their product aluminium. However, vide Notification No. 186/78 dated 18-10-78, there was a revision in the rate of duty and that maintaining 40% ad valorem plus 5% special excise of basic duty, the Government wiped of the rate of duty of Rs. 800/- per M.T. earlier levied on the said product. The appellants came to know about the issue of notification only on 15-11-78 and hence they filed a revised classification list...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Khuller Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: (1992)LC521Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs & Cen. Excise, Goa bearing No.11/52/84 Pr. dated 22-11-1984, so far as it relates to imposition of personal penalty of Rs.11,000/- on the appellant, who was the Chief Engineer of the vessel.2. On 27-9-1984, the ship Jag Doot was searched by the officers of the Customs and some contraband goods, not declared in the manifest or in their declaration were found concealed at various places and on investigation the officers were not in a position to identify those persons who were responsible for bringing the goods. The matter was adjudicated and after due adjudication the Addl. Collector has imposed a penalty of Rs.11,000/- on the appellant. The present appeal is against the imposition of penalty.3. Heard Shri Arya. He supported the order by saying that the goods were found from the Engine room and it was the responsibility of the engineer to keep a watch that no illegal activity was committed by any of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tukappa Tamanna Lingardi Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: (1990)92BOMLR441; 1991CriLJ2375
Vaidya, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29th April, 1987 under which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawantwadi (Mr. S. R. Ghanvatkar) had convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The name of the victim was Ajappa Fakirappa Dasapanawar. The appellant was also convicted of offences punishable under sections 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code for causing hurt to police constable Desai who was on duty on the scene of offence at the relevant point of time. For the first mentioned offence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month. For the latter mentioned offence, the appellant was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. The offence in question...
Tag this Judgment!Canara Bank Vs. G.M.V. Nayak and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: [1991(61)FLR579]; (1991)IILLJ198Bom
1. Respondent No. 1 hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent', filed an application on behalf of several employees of Canara Bank, which is the petitioner. Those employees were working in the branches of the petitioner-bank at Pune. The application was filed by the respondent under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging illegal deduction of wages on the part of the petitioner and claiming recovery of the amount so illegally deducted.2. Certain circumstances leading to the filing of the application ought to be necessarily stated. One employee of a branch of the petitioner-bank in Pune had been transferred to another branch. In order to protest against this transfer, the employees of nearly 14 branches in Pune, acting in a concerted manner and in combination of other employees and with the common intention, says the petitioner, disrupted the working of the said branches by resorting to flash strikes, lasting for a definite period of time each day from 2nd to 6th of Ap...
Tag this Judgment!P. Kumar and Co. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR672(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, a registered partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the notice dated June 19, 1987, issued by respondent No. 2, Tax Recovery Officer, CW Ward, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Bombay-400027.2. The petitioners entered into an agreement for sale dated August 18, 1984, with Bharat Parikh and Co., in respect, of premises No. 617, Parikh Market, Opera House, Bombay-400 004, for a consideration of Rs. 3,65,000. The possession of the premises was handed over to the petitioners on the same day. On the same day, the petitioners and Bharat Parikh and Co.,jointly filed Form No. 37EE (under Rule 48DD) before the competent authority as required under Section 269AB(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The permanent account number and the GIR number of Bharat Parikh and Co. were furnished in Part II of the Form. Nothing was heard from the competent authority or the Income-tax Officer on ...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan S/O Balaji Bhange Vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Deve ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR469
M. S. Ratnaparkhi, J.1. The orders passed by the respondent No. 1 on 5-8-1983 (Annexures 3, 4 and 5) promoting the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 to Category No. 8 from Category No. 9 have been challenged in this writ petition. A mandate is sought from this Court directing the responding No. 1 to promote the petitioner in Category No. 8.2. The fact giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows:The petitioner was working with the respondent No. 1 as a supervisor and his initial appointment dates bank to 1969. At that time, the respondent No. 1 was not in existence and it was the Nagpur District Land Mortgage Bank which was the entry appointing him. He was further promoted as supervisor in 1971 by the old Land Mortgage Bank. In 1973, the respondent no. 1---Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank was formulated by the statute and all the District Land Mortgage Banks were amalgamated with the respondent No. 1, so that with effect from the date of amalgamation the dif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »