Mumbai Court July 1990 Judgments

Krislon Texturisers Ltd. Vs. S. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(51)ELT307(Bom)

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Vyas waives service. Heard counsel.2. The issue involved in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioners had imported POY of 115 deniers which is texturised by petitioner No. 1 and fall under Tariff Item No. 18-II(i)(a) of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners cleared the consignment on payment of levy of Rs. 78.75 per kg. The petitioners claimed that the duty should have been levied at the rate of Rs. 61.25 per kg. The petitioners paid the duty under protest and thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 176 of 1983 in this Court for a declaration that the additional duty of customs or countervailing duly leviable on POY of 115 deniers was Rs. 61.25 per kg. and not Rs. 78.75 per kg. which is sought to be charged by the Collector of Customs. The petitioners also sought writ directing the respondents to clear the imported goods on payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 61.25 per kg. The peti...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Marsons Beneficiary Trust,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Bom)71; [1991]188ITR224(Bom)

sujata V. Manohar, J.1. In all these applications, there are certain basic facts which are common. The income-tax applications pertain to the assessment to income-tax of the trustees of a trust in which, under the deed of trust, the settlor has given to the trustees a power to carry on business. Under the deed of trust in each application, the income of the trust including its business income is required to be distributed amongst specified beneficiaries in shares which are determinate. The questions which have been posed in these applications relate to the manner of assessment to tax of the business income of the trust.2. All these applications relate to the assessment years which are prior to the date when Section 161(1A) was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961. This amendment has been inserted by the Finance Act, 1984, with effect, from April .1, 1985. We are, therefore, concerned with the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act prior to that date.3. Chapter XV of the Income-tax A...

Maharashtra Co-operative Courts' Bar Association and Ors. Vs. State of ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR437

M.L. Pendse, J.1. The independence of judiciary is doubtless a basic structure of the Constitution and the concept that the executive should have no control to regulate the working of Courts is a doctrine accepted for over century in all the civilised countries. Indeed, independence of the Judiciary is a basic foundation of establishment of rule of law and the Constitution makers were fully conscious of the same. Though the framers of the Constitution did not completely insulate the judicial system from executive control, the principle that the executive shall not control the working of the Courts is accepted all along. Indeed, the Constitutional Agency has shielded the Courts in our country with many built in safeguards and expects the Courts to discharge the duties solely guided by the doctrine of conscience and principles of Constitution. The Courts are expected to function with neutrality and impartiality while adjudicating disputes between a citizen and citizen and a citizen and t...

Kec International Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1991(31)ECC346; 1991LC702(Bombay); 1991(52)ELT352(Bom)

Rule, returnable forthwith.Shri Shah waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard counsel.1. The petitioners carry on business of process of galvanising various structural steel pats supplied by their customers. It is the claim of the petitioners that the process of galvanising does not bring into existence any new product having any distinct name and therefore galvanising does not constitute manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Since March 1975 the petitioners were compelled to pay excise duty by the Department under the residuary Item 68 of the erstwhile first schedule to the Act. The petitioners entered into correspondence with the Departments but the Superintendent of Excise by order dated February 4, 1980 held that the duty was payable. The petitioners carried appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and the appeal was allowed by order dated August 13, 1981 and it was held that the process of galvanising does not amount to manufac...

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(50)ELT338(Bom)

Rule, returnable forthwith.Shri Shah waives service on behalf of the respondents.Heard counsel.1. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay has disposed of the applications for stay of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise during pendency of the appeal without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners also complain that consequently because of the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed on order on December 29, 1989 against that petitioner confirming the demand amount of Rs. 67,928.53. The Assistant Collector had also passed another order confirming the demand of Rs. 53,650.96. In respect of these two orders the petitioners preferred appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The petitioners also filed...

Colgate-palmolive and Others Vs. Dr. K.V. Swaminathan and Another

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: AIR1991Bom111; 1990(3)BomCR452

1. The petitioner No. 2 are a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act No. VII of 1913and are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 was incorporated in the year 1937 as a private company limited by shares. Subsequently, in the year 1978, it was converted into a public limited company and 60% of its capital is held by Indian shareholders, while the balance of 40% is held by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 Company is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. and also carries on business of manufacture and sale of tooth paste, cosmetics and toilet preparations. The petitioner No. 2 is an Indian Company for the purpose of both the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1971. The petitioner No. 2 are not a Company to which Part 'A' of Chaper III of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 applie...

Kamlakar Kashinath Badwa Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporat ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

G.G. Loney, President: (1) This representative common cause complaint has been filed by five complainants alleging the deficient transport service by Opposite Party, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The nature of deficiency in service is attributed to the irregularity in plying the buses, which affects the regular passengers like students, employees, litigants and general public. Second important deficiency alleged is that no written plates are put on buses showing its destination. No proper announcements are made about the departure of buses as a result of which the travellers are put to difficulties. In order to support this allegation, the complainants have placed on record various photocopies of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation buses showing absence of destination plates and newspaper cuttings. (2) The complainants alleged that the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has been violating various rules under the Motor Vehicles Act. (3) Notice ...

Shree Steel Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1993)(46)LC88Tri(Mum.)bai

1. For hearing the applicants' appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 90,518.18 towards duty and Rs. 25,000/- towards penalty.2. Shri N.K. Kapoor, the Ld. advocate on behalf of the applicants, pleaded that the demand is for a period from October 1986 to Sept 1987 and the show cause notice has been issued initially on 15.2.1988 by the Supdt. made answerable to the Assistant Collector and as such the show cause notice then issued was bad in law. He submitted that the matter was taken up to the Collector (Appeals) who remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector and that thereafter a fresh show cause notice dated 23/24.1.1990 was issued by the Additional Collector invoking the extended period and alleging suppression. He submitted that the facts were very much within the knowledge of the department when they were availing of the MODVAT credit on Silicon Manganese and that there was no suppression and as such the extended period is not applicable. He also submitted tha...

Sk. Khaja Sk. Choota Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR453

A.A. Halbe, J.1. The important question posed in this First Appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when he has not recorded the protest at the time of receiving the compensation amount of the land acquired by the State Government. The facts, which give rise to this question are as under:The Government acquired lands at Roze Bagh, Aurangabad, for the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and for that purpose, the Government issued necessary notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. The Notification under Section 6 was issued on 14th October, 1973, under which survey No. 10 of Roze Bagh was acquired. The claimant Sk. Khaja Sk. Choota had his house No. 10.11. I, situated in this survey number and he had constructed a house comprising of four rooms on the plo...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1990)87CTR(Bom)98; [1991]187ITR1(Bom)

T.D. Sugla, J.1. In this cross-reference, the Tribunal has referred to this court the following questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :At the instance of the Revenue : (Assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1978-79, and 1979-80) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that gratuity to the extent up to which it was exempt under section 10(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should not be considered for the purpose of making the disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' At the instance of the assessee : (common question for all the assessment years : 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the provisions of section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 21,42,815, which was already deducted by Lube India L...