Mumbai Court July 1990 Judgments
Warden and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)(52)ELT550Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.HN-334/TH-103/86, dated 23-9-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original bearing No.V(17) 18-740847, dated 14-1-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division I, Thane, rejecting a portion of the refund claim as being hit by limitation.2. From the records, it appears that part of the claim which is rejected as time-barred pertains to the payment of duty for the period from 11-12-1983 to 12-6-1984 and the refund claim was filed on 26-7-1984.3. Shri J.K. Shah, Joint Works Accountant, for the appellants, submitted that though the claim is apparently barred under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the claim has to be taken as within time as their RT-12 Returns for the said period were finally assessed on 2-4-1984 and that the relevant date for the purpose of claiming refund would be the date of final assessment and for this purpose ...
Tag this Judgment!Advance Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC459Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-Appeal bearing No.PPM-10B-I-52/86 dated 25-8-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the Order-in-Original No. V( 14) 18-87/83/2892 dated 7-6-84 rejecting part of the claim for refund holding that though the duty was being paid under protest for the relevant period the classification list, under which the amount was being paid, the appellant claimed exemption only under Notification No.220/77 and not under any other notification and hence claiming further exemption under another notification not specified in the classified list is not permissible.2. Shri G.C. Biradar, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the applicants, submitted that the claim for another amount of Rs. 120.26 and Rs. 446.02 have also been rejected but he was not pressing the appeal in relation to those amounts and was only restricting to the appeal to the rejection of the claim for Rs. 14,255.68. He submitted that this claim relates to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Yeshwant Samant Vs. Smt. Suparna Ashok Samant and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR383; (1990)92BOMLR434; 1991CriLJ766; II(1991)DMC132
ORDER1. The petitioner Ashok is the husband of Respondent Suparna. The respondent had filed proceedings u/S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from the petitioner sometime in the year 1979. It appears that the said proceedings were decided ex parte in the absence of the petitioner/husband and an order awarding maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month was passed in favour of the respondent/wife.2. The petitioner who was not intimated about the ex parte order failed to pay the maintenance awarded to the wife. The respondent/wife then approached the trial Court u/S. 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. for recovery of the amount awarded. Even the proceedings for attachment of property of the petitioner proved to be futile as there was no property worth attaching. In these circumstances the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment by the trial Court, which imprisonment he suffered. It appears that subsequently again the arrears were due and defaulted by the petitioner, for which he had...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. O.P. Ralhan
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD339(Mum.)
1. Appeal is by the Department and cross-objections are by the assessee. The Department's main ground of appeal is as follows: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(1) erred in (1) setting aside the assessment by ignoring the fact that adequate and sufficient opportunity was given by the ITO at the assessment stage. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in ignoring the facts on record and relying on the unsubstantiated pleadings of the assessee before him that the accountant was blackmailing the assessee and that the books were in the possession of the accountant. The learned CIT(A) has not appreciated that the facts were not placed at any time before the ITO at assessment stage and that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed copies of accounts from his ledger which clearly contradicts the stand taken by the assessee before the CIT(A).Thus, the Department objects to the assessment being set aside by the CI...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Morris Electronics Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR653(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. The Department's application requesting the Tribunal to refer the following two questions to this court as questions of law was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no referable questions of law arose out of its order :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assets under erection are entitled for relief under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assets used for scientific research were used for the purpose of the assessee's business and that, consequently, the cost of such scientific research is to be included for computing the capital employed in the business for the purpose of Section 80J of the Act ?'2. We find that the first question is covered by the decision of our court in the case of CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) . No purpose is, thus, going to be s...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Raman Kantilal Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1990
Reported in: 1990(29)ECC152
C. Mookerjee, C.J.1. This appeal is filed by the Union of India and two others and is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge making the Rule obtained by the Respondent Raman Kantilal Bhandari absolute and directing the present Appellants who were Respondents in the Writ Petition to refund an amount of Rs. 15,688.94 p. paid by the petitioner as additional duty on the import of a consignment of Pentaerythritol made in August 1984. In deciding in favour of the Writ Petitioner, the learned Single Judge has held that the said imported goods were a sort of alcohol within the meaning of Entry 68 Schedule, I of the Central Excise and Salt Act and, therefore, exempt from payment of the additional duty by the Petitioner., The, learned Single Judge in this connection had, inter alia, relied upon the Circular Letter No. 4/84 dated 1st October, 1984 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, on the scope of the term; 'alcohol of all sorts' appearing i...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1990(50)ELT500(Bom)
1. By Notification No. 121/72 dated April 1, 1972, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. 39/72 dated 17-3-1972, the Central Government exempted vegetable product falling under Item No. 13 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in the manufacture of which indigenous cotton seed oil is used and cleared from a factory in any quarter of a financial year, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the amount calculated, at the rate specified in column 3 of the Table annexed thereto, on the quantity of indigenous cotton seed oil used in the manufacture of such vegetable product to the extent specified in column 2 of the said table. The table in question shows, under column 2, the extent of indigenous cotton-seed oil used in the manufacture of veg...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar and Others Vs. Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR174]; (1992)ILLJ161Bom
1. The petitioners-employees of the respondent-Maharashtra State Mining corporation Ltd. approached this Court with a prayer for punishing the respondent Corporation for having committed breach of the orders passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad in complaints Nos. U.L.P. 38/1988 to 41/1988. According to the petitioners the Industrial Court was pleased to pass the order on August 22, 1989 in the above complaints whereby the Corporation was called upon to comply with the requirements enunciated in paras 2, 3 and 4 of that order. According to the petitioners inspite of this order and inspite of the representations made by them thereafter to the respondent-Corporation, nothing was done by the Corporation towards the implementation of the order referred above. It is also contended that the Industrial Court was pleased to observe that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Preven...
Tag this Judgment!Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Vs. Rup Ram S/O Mohan Lal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR363
M.G. Chaudhari, J.1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raises the important question as to whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, applies to the premises of Aurangabad Cantonment Board. The learned advocate for the petitioner, Shri Lakhkar, argued that the provisions of the aforesaid Act do apply to such premises. As against that, Shri Bakshi, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 argued that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the premises of the Cantonment Board.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts leading to this petition, are as follows:-The premises in dispute are described as House No. 792, belonging to the Aurangabad Cantonment Board, situated withing the limits of Aurangabad Cantonment, which is a defined cantonment under section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Respondent No.1-Rup Ram is an officer in the Defence Services, Government of India, and has been in occupation of these premise...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhakar D. Janai Vs. Education Officer, Zilla Parishad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR457; (1992)94BOMLR727
V.A. Mohta, J.1. Model Rules of Promotion given in Appendix Seven, vide Rule 37.4 of the Secondary Schools Code fall for consideration in this petition filed on behalf of an VIIIth standard student Ram Sudhakar Janai, who has not been promoted to the IXth standard by a committee constituted under Rule 4 of the Model Rules. According to the petitioner who is the father of the student, the decision of the Committee and so also its upholding by the Education Officer is illegal and hence his son should be directed to be promoted.2. We do not find any substance in the grievance made out, for the reasons that follow. The Mode Rules read as under :'1. (i) Promotion of a student from one standard to another shall be made at the end of school year on the basis of his/her performance at the two semester examination, written and practical (wherever prescribed), conducted by the schools, and his/her semester performance consisting of oral examinations (wherever prescribed), unit tests, home work, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »