Mumbai Court September 1990 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Zenith Dyes and Chemicals and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC680Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the aforesaid 4 appeals have been brought forth by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara against the orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay allowing the appeals of the respondents and setting aside the order of the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the demands for recovery of Modvat credit issued in pursuance of Rule 57I are beyond the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act. It is needless to set out the facts of these cases in details since the only issue involved which is required to be considered in these appeals is whether during the period when Rule 57I did not prescribe any time limit for recovery of Modvat credit irregularly availed of, time prescribed under Section 11A would be applicable Both the sides agreed that in all these cases, notices for recovery have been issued beyond the period of six months and in these cases applicability of the extended period prescribed under Section 11A is not the issue. Only...
Tag this Judgment!Dnyanba Son of Tulshiram Khandar Vs. Indrayani W/O Dnyanba Khandare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR20
D.J. Moharir, J.1. Both these criminal applications will stand disposed of by the present common judgment. These criminal applications arise out of one and the same proceedings viz. Misc. Cr. Case No. 47(86) on the file of J.M.F.C., Washim and decided on 21-2-87. That was application under section 125 Cr.P.C. made by Indrayani wife of Dnyanba and Bhagirathi as their minor daughter. Maintenance was claimed by Indrayani as the wife and Bhagirathi as the minor daughter. This application was partly allowed by the learned Magistrate. He held that the marriage between the present applicant Dnyanba and Indrayani was not strictly proved in accordance with law and also strictly valid in law as such. He did held that some form of marriage had been gone through; that Dnyanba and Indrayani had lived as man and wife and it was by reason of this living together, as man and wife that the said Bhagirathi had been born to them. The learned Magistrate, therefore, held that though Indrayani could not be ...
Tag this Judgment!Royal Cusion Vinyl Products Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC620Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals from the three different appellants cover the same issue, namely whether Modvat credit irregularly availed of could be recovered without regard to the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and in all these cases the demands have been issued beyond a period of six months and the provision of Rule 571 and P of the Central Excise Rules have been invoked. It has been held by the Collector (Appeals) that they are independent provisions and no time limit is prescribed in those rules.Hence the plea of time bar was not accepted.2. Shri Willingdon Christian, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants, referred to the various decisions of this Bench on the very same issue wherein this Tribunal has been consistently holding that the time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act would be attracted even in the case of demands for recovery of Modvat credit under Rule 571, during the period when no time limit was prescribed under Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Paramount Premises (P.) Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR259(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an application by the Department praying that the following question should be directed to be referred to us under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that (1) interest on sale deposits of Rs. 20,000, (2) interest on temporary loan from surplus funds of Rs. 14,686 and (3) interest on fixed deposits of Rs. 1,200 and other interest of Rs. 2,877, are business receipts and not to be assessed as 'income from other sources' during the assessment year 1978-79 ?'2. The Tribunal has given the following findings of fact. The assessee was engaged in the business of building construction. For the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee was engaged in the construction of three buildings. The assessee received deposits in instalments from prospective purchasers while the work of construction was in progress. If purchasers failed to make deposits by stipulat...
Tag this Judgment!Machinnon Machenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT190(Bom)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questions the legality of treating as excise duty that which was recovered as countervailing duty (CVD) under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA).2. Petitioners' vessel M. V. TEESTA was engaged by M/s. Golodetz Ltd. to carry 11,500 tones of bagged sugar from Bombay to Indonesia, Loading of the cargo began on 7th March 1977 and while it was in progress, a fire took place in Hatch No. 4 of the vessel. Water used to stamp out the fire damaged the commodity packed in 7362 bags. This lot in a damages mitigating sale fetched Rs. 19,48,571.20 ps. inclusive of demurrage payable to the Bombay Port Trust (BPT). Petitioners filed a Bill of Entry (B/E) showing the above offloaded and disposed of sugar to be of the value of Rs. 19,69,550/-. On this account petitioners paid Rs. 8,86,297.50 ps. as CVD. Pleading a calculation mistake, a refund of Rs. 2,98,162.00 was claimed. This claim was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!May and Baker (India) Ltd. Vs. J.S. Coutinho, National Union of Commer ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ630Bom
Pendse, J.1. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is whether for the purpose of calculating gratuity, a day's wage is to be arrived at by dividing a month's wages by 26 days or number of actual working days in a month. The question arises for consideration in the following circumstances:2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company having its registered Office in Bombay and also a factory at Kanjurmarg in State of Maharashtra. The Company has also various branches and factories situated all over India. The Respondent No. 1 was employed as a clerk by the Company from March 30, 1942. The Respondent No. 1 retired on reaching the age of superannuation on April 1, 1981 and at the time of retirement the salary of Respondent No. 1 was Rs. 989.45. The Respondent No. 1 was covered by the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 till June 1972 as after that date, the total wages drawn by Respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!S.D. Dhanawade (Dr.) Vs. the Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: [1991(63)FLR510]; (1995)IIILLJ40Bom
Pendse, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in the Health Department of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation on March 1, 1953. The petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on December 1, 1979. The last drawn salary of the petitioner was Rs. 967.80. The petitioner had put in a total period of service of 24 years and 9 months. On retirement, the petitioner was paid the amount available in the Provident Fund Account. On January 8, 1980 the petitioner sent application to the Municipal Corporation under Rule 7(i) demanding gratuity according to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Rule 10(1) on June 18, 1980 before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kolhapur for recovery of Rs. 12,581.40. The claim was resisted by the Corporation on the ground that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the Corporation and the provisions of Section 1(3) of the Act are not attra...
Tag this Judgment!Pdi Chemicals Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1990
Reported in: 1990(3)BomCR767
S.M. Daud, J.1. Is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) liable to octroi within the intendment of Article 42 to Schedule H read with section with section 192(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act( Act No. III of 1888 )---hereinafter referred to as the 'Article 42'. Schedule. Section, and 'Act' respectively ?2. The second petitioner is a shareholder of the first petitioner which is a company engaged in the manufacture of dyes, pigments, synthetic resins, chemicals and auxiliary products. The manufacture of some of these items requires PVA and petitioner (hereinafter there will be no reference to the petitioner No. 2) imports the same from countries overseas. Respondents, to be referred to as the 'BMC', had once levied octroi on the import of PVA as being a 'Plastic or Plastic goods' falling under Article 32 of the schedule. Eventually the BMC relented, but only upon petitioner furnishing an undertaking that the PVA would not be used for sizing purpose or as plastic material at the time and plac...
Tag this Judgment!Jam Shri Ranjit Singhji Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1990
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC188; 1990LC591(Bombay); 1991(52)ELT365(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Solapur, served three show cause notices dated February 8, 1977, October 7, 1977 and October 7, 1977 on the petitioners under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 demanding duty short levied. The petitioners filed their reply and the Assistant Collector, Solapur by order dated June 5, 1982 made the show cause notices absolute. The petitioners preferred appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, but the appeals ended in dismissal by order dated August 20, 1982. These orders are under challenge.2. Shri Shah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the principal controversy in the petition stands concluded by the decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in : 1988(34)ELT539(Bom) [Kamala Mills Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.]. Shri Shah submitted that the petitioners desire to raise on more contention to urge that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass o...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Mehta Construction Co. and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1990
Reported in: 1991(1)BomCR400
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award dated 15th October 1987 made by Arbitrator Shri G.D. Chopra. By the said award the learned Arbitrator has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,69,616. 12 p. with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 11-6-1985 till the date of payment or decree whichever event may be earlier, to the claimants in full and final settlement of all the claims and counter claims referred.2. For the reasons set out hereinafter, 1 delete the interest awarded by the Arbitrator for the period from 11-6-1985 until 15-10-1987 and maintain and affirm the award in respect of the principal amount of Rs. 1,69,616.12 and interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the period commencing from 16-10-87 till passing of the decree.3. The facts and circumstances of the case are as under :The Executive Engineer, Bombay Central, Division VIII, CPWD invited tenders for carrying out work of construction of 2600 quarte...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »