Mumbai Court September 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: 1991LC548(Bombay); 1991(51)ELT214(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 22, 1980 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Thane Division II, rejecting the claim for refund made by the petitioners for the period covering from December 30, 1971 to May 20, 1974 on the ground that the claim is barred by limitation prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a joint stock company governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and runs a factory at village Kolshet in Thane District. The petitioners manufacture synthetic resins, viz. (i) Finish K : V : S : Lig new; (ii) Finish-P; (iii) Finish-L. CRN; (iv) Finish L.C.R.; (v) Finish-P I; (vi) Finish-E N I Pasta; and (vii) Finish- V.K.S. The petitioners were paying excise duty on the manufacture of these products under Tariff Item No. 15A(1) of the First Schedule to...
Weikfield Products Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: 1991(51)ELT323(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and manufacturing drinking chocolate powder which is liable to payment of excise duty under T.I. No. 1A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Government of India published notification dated April 30, 1968 exempting drinking chocolate powder from whole of excise duty for the first 20 metric tons clearance, provided the total clearance during the financial year did not exceed 40 metric tons. For the financial year March 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974, the company cleared the goods and paid excise duty at the full rate. At the end of the financial year, the company had not cleared goods in excess of 40 metric tons and was, therefore, entitled to the advantage of exemption notification. Accordingly, the company filed refund application dated 30-11-1974 before the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, demanding refund of Rs. ...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1990
Reported in: [1991(62)FLR191]; (1995)IIILLJ603Bom
S.M. Daud, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the petitioner being directed to answer queries vis-a-vis workers employed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4.2. Petitioner has its factory at Pune and other places in India. It is in the business of manufacture of commercial vehicles and engineering goods. It has a work-force of near about 13,000 employees. The said employees are covered by the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. In relation to its factory at Pimpri, the conservancy work is attended to by employees of the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent is said to be a supplier of certain goods required by the petitioner in the manufacture of commercial vehicles. Petitioner's grievance is that respondent No. 2 has been illegally demanding that it supply information in relation to the work-force employed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This is despite the fact that these respondents are not i...
Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD579(Mum.)
1. In this appeal the assessee is challenging the action of the Income-tax authorities withdrawing deduction of Rs. 24,21,501 allowed under Section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the assessment originally framed.2. The assessee is a company and is engaged in manufacturing of cotton textiles, rayon yarn, tyrecord, industrial chemicals and cement. The assessment year is 1977-78 and the relevant previous year is the calendar year 1976.3. We narrate certain facts in detail to show that this litigation could have been avoided if the assessee had pointed out to the ITO that there is no provision in Section 80HH of the Act for the carry forward of unabsorbed deduction (hereinafter referred to as "deficiency") similar to the one contained in Section 80J of the Act. (a) The assessee had set up a cement unit in a backward area for which it was entitled to deduction both under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Act, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77. As there was no taxable prof...
Merind Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)35ITD553(Mum.)
1. These are appeals for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 31-3-1986. Several grounds are raised in these appeals which are dealt with seriatim. We will first deal with the assessment year 1981-82.2. The first ground raised for this year is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment made for the assessment year 1981-82 is barred by limitation and hence invalid in law as the period commencing from the date on which the ITO forwarded the draft assessment order to the assessee and ending with the date on which the assessee received directions from the IAC has exceeded the specified period of 180 days. Certain facts in this regard may first be stated.The assessee is a limited company deriving income from manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. For the assessment year 1981-82, the ITO forwarded the draft assessment order to the IAC on 10-2-1984.The IAC's directions und...
Chintaman Tukaram Detir Vs. Anand Moreshwar Bhat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1990
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR666; (1991)93BOMLR444; 1991(1)MhLj435
Ashok Agarwal, J.1. Whether the successor of a widows landlady are obliged to give notice to the tenant of the fact of death of the widow in proceedings under section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the tenancy Act') is the short question then arises for determination in the present petition. 2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the suits lands. The description of the same as given are given below:- Village Sr. No. Area Assessment H A Rs.Ps. Nale 240 G-44 1-00 243 1-15-3 5-31 244 0-69-5 8-003. The respondents are the landlords. They succeeded to the aforesaid lands under a Will of one Saraswatibai, who was originally the landlady. The husband of Saraswatibai died on 29th June, 1947. She was thus a widow as on 1st April, 1957, the tillers day. In view of this the tillers day was postponed during her life time.4. On 2nd of November ,1973 the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 32-G for f...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: (1992)(58)ELT212Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Both the aforesaid appeals are directed against the common order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. S/49-122 & 126/89 MISC dated 15-3-1990. The Collector (Appeals) disposed of 2 appeals of the appellants against the orders of the Asstt. Collector one bearing order-in-original No. 28/89 and Another bearing order-in-original bearing No. 31/89. Since the issues involved are the same, they were argued together and proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants warehoused consignments on 27-3-1982 and 16-4-1982.The period of warehousing was extended from time to time and finally the goods were cleared on 29-12-1987 and 14-10-1988 in respect of both the warehoused consignments. Show cause notices were issued for payment of interest in respect of the goods cleared demanding interest at 6% per annum and accordingly in the case of appeal No. 233/90 a demand of Rs. 2,15,225/- and in the case of appeal No. C/237/90 a demand of Rs. 45,752/- were confirmed. In the adj...
Bombay Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Employees of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: [1991]71CompCas473(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of the winding-up petition filed by the company itself under the provisions of section 433(a), (e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. The company was incorporated as a public company limited by shares on November 15, 1979, and was then called the CIDCO Transport Corporation Limited. It was a subsidiary of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited ('CIDCO') and its share capital was held by CIDCO and its nominees. The shares of CIDCO itself are owned by the State of Maharashtra and its nominees. The object of the company was to carry on the business of carriage of passengers by road and water within and around New Bombay. The nominal capital of the company is Rs. 50,00,000 divided into 50,000 shares and its issued and paid-up capital is Rs. 10,00,000 divided into 10,000 shares. On June 17, 1980, the name of the company was changed to that which it presently bea...
Rohitkumar and Co. and Others Vs. F.J. Bahadur, Cit and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: (1991)92CTR(Bom)260; [1991]190ITR93(Bom)
T.D. Sugla, J.1. By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a partnership firm, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated August 4, 1987, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. On April 30, 1981, when one Shri K. C. Mehta was returning from Delhi with cash of Rs. 22,87,000, the amount was seized from him under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In his statement recorded at the airport itself, he stated that he had received the said amount from four parties at Delhi for delivering the same to a firm, Jemnadas Madhavji and Co., in Bombay for which he was working. On inquiry at Delhi, the departmental authorities, it appears, found that the alleged four parties at Delhi were either non-existing or had denied having given any money to the said Shri K. C. Mehta. On May 4, 1981, the petitioner-company wrote to the Deputy Director of Inspection (Intelligence) that the amount of Rs...
Citanjali Ravi Sambhwani Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(54)ELT169(Bom)
Kurdukar, J.1. This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, challenging the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 15th May, 1990, issued by the 2nd Respondent - Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Petitioner, in this writ petition, claims to be sister-in-law of one Ashok Sambhwani, who has been detained pursuant to the aforesaid order of detention.2. The 2nd Respondent, on being subjectively satisfied that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial under the Act and with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the augmentation of the foreign exchange, it is necessary to issue the order of detention.3. No dispute is raised before us as regards the service of the order of detention, grounds of detent...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »