Mumbai Court January 1991 Judgments
Ama Extrusions Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC78Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal No.R-1198/NG/88 dated 17-8-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefs facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal can be stated as below: 3. The appellants filed a refund claim on 9-10-1987 for a sum of Rs. 59,338.34 being the duty paid during the period from 3-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. The aforesaid refund claim was rejected as time barred by the Assistant Collector holding that the regular refund claim was filed only on 9-10-1987 beyond a period of six months and hence hit by limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the CESA. When the matter was taken up in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), the appeal was also rejected. Hence the present appeal before us.4. Shri R. Parthasarathy, the Ld. Advocate for the appellants, referred to their letter dated 7-4-1986 while filing the RT-12 Return for the month of March, 1986, pointing out that they have paid duty in excess as per the enclosed statem...
Tag this Judgment!United Phosphorus Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC80Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Appeal No. E/314/88 Bom is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No R-780/BD-175/87 dated 30-6-1988.2. Appeal No. E/41/89 Bom is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. GSM-67/BD-275/88 dt 02-12-1988.3. Both the cases involve the same issue, namely the rejection of the refund claim in respect of defective goods returned for reprocessing and cleared again on payment of duty after re-processing.4. Shri Prakash Shah, the Ld. Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that in both the cases, the goods were returned being defective and on their arrival D-3 intimations given and taken into the prescribed register and they were also duly reprocessed within the period of six months and the re-processed goods were cleared on payment of duty. He gave the facts in each case as below: Details DateGoods returned 19-12-85 16-6-86D-3 Declaration given 20-12-85 16-6-86Goods taken for processing Dec-Mar 86 July 86Refund claim filed 12-3-86 15-10...
Tag this Judgment!J. Maheshkumar Petrochemicals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD235(Mum.)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 2-4-1990 in relation to the assessment year 1987-88. 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that sales tax collected by appellant on behalf of other parties, constitutes their trading receipt. 2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not specifically holding that Section 43B comes into play only when tax has accrued and become due for payment. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not specifically holding that question of disallowance does not arise under Section 43B in cases, where the amount of sales tax collected and paid is charged to separate account and no part of it is claimed as expenditure of business. 4. On facts of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that appellant company deals in goods and that status of company is trading company.3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned De...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Agrawal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD60(Mum.)
1. Since a common point is involved in these appeals, they are disposed of together for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a practising Chartered Accountant and is a partner in the firms of M/s. M.B. Agrawal & Co., and M/s. M.B. Agrawal & Associates. The assessment years are 1987-88 and 1988-89 and the relevant previous years are the corresponding financial years ended on 31-3-1987 and 31-3-1988 respectively.3. The facts pertaining to the issue involved could be gathered from the statement of facts filed by the assessee along with the Appeal Memo before the first appellate authority. The said facts are reproduced below : 1. Your appellant has two self-occupied flats. One flat in Bhavani Complex 'A' and the other flat in Bhavani Complex 'B'. Both the flats are not actually let during any part of the previous year and no other benefit therefrom is derived by the appellant. These facts are not under dispute. The income from self-occupied flat in Bhavani Complex 'B' is tak...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Mary Dowling Vs. Mrs. Margaret Merwan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Bom389; 1991(3)BomCR229; (1991)93BOMLR844; 1991(1)MhLj487
1. This is a petition for revocation of a Succession Certificate granted to the respondent herein on 29th March, 1986.2. The facts are as follows: One John Arthur Stewart died interstate on or about 16th August, 1985. The respondent herein filed Petition No. 156 of 1986 claiming that she was the daughter and only heir of the said deceased. The Succession Certificate was therefore granted to her on 29th March, 1986. The Original Petitioner herein was the sister of the deceased. She claimed that she and one other sister were the only heirs of thedeceased. However, it is now admitted before me that the deceased had three sisters by names: (i) Mary E. Dowling (Original Petitioner), (ii) Maud Eccleston and (iii) Mrs. E. Prist. The Original Petitioner Dowling expired on 30th April, 1990. The present petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of the said Mrs. Mary Dowling. 3. The grounds of revocation are that the respondent herein had not disclosed the names of the heirs and therefo...
Tag this Judgment!MainuddIn KasIn Mulla Vs. State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1991(2)BomCR586; (1991)93BOMLR825; 1991(1)MhLj1089
M.S. Vaidya, J.1. These three criminal appeals arise out of convictions and sentences awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli on 3rd September, 1987 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1986. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1988 was accused No. 1, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1988 was accused No. 2 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 777 of 1987 was accused No. 3 in all the said trial. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted of offences punishable under section 8 read with section 20 and under section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On each count they were sentenced separately sentenced separately to suffer R. I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to suffer further R.I. for two years. Accused No. 3 was convicted of offences punishable under section 8 read with section 20 and section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and he was also sentenced separately to suffer R.I. for ...
Tag this Judgment!S.G. Rajadhyaksha, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Yusuf Kadar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1991
Reported in: 1991(36)LC491(Bombay)
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This Appeal by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, takes exception to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, acquitting the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, Yusuf Kadar and Jamaluddin Raj Mohammed Khan by allowing their appeals against the conviction recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) read with Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(a) read with Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Initially, three persons came to be charge-sheeted by the complainant, the Customs Department., for commission of the above stated offences. Out of them, the original accused No. 3, one Shankar Jaya Dhawle pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced.2. The prosecution of all these persons came to be launched upon the following brief material allegations.3. The Colaba Police Station of Bombay carries out Nakabandi ...
Tag this Judgment!City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom55; 1993(1)MhLj193
ORDERV. A. Mohta, J.1. This is a buyer's appeal against a money decree mainly representing the unpaid price of the goods sold and tonnes of mild steel round bars and cold twisted deformed bars of various specified sizes was invited by the buyer -- original defendant No. 1 -- City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO). Tender of the seller -- original plaintiff --M/s. Nagpur Steel and Alloys Private Limited, Nagpur, was ultimately accepted and a purchase order dated 14th/15th December 1977 was despatched to Nagpur. This contract was subject to conditions specified in the tender as well as the purchase order. The agreed rate was Rs. 2275.05 per metric tonne. The seller was obliged to test the goods from some Government institution and to despatch the test certificates. Goods without test certificates and not as per specifications were to be rejected by the buyer. The exact words of that part of the contract are :'Material without test certificates and material not...
Tag this Judgment!The Catholic Association of Bombay and Others Vs. the Municipal Corpor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom100; 1991(2)BomCR604; 1991(2)MhLj999
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the demolition of a Cross held sacred by the Roman Catholic community residents at Bombay and in particular at Mahim.2. Petitioners are an association and office-bearers of certain associations at Mahim. At the relevant time respondent No. 2 was the Administrator of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 a Senior Ward Officer of the 1st respondent. In the vicinity of the Parsi Maidan at Mahim near the junction of M.M. Chotani Road and Phamber Lane -- so allege the petitioners -- stood the Cross figuring in this case. This Cross was installed in the year 1905 and had stood undisturbed up to the night of 16th March 1985. In fact in September 1977, the 1st respondent i.e. the Bombay Municipal Corporation, had given a no objection to the proposal to renovate the said Cross by providing mosaic tiles thereto. Suddenly without any previous intimation at about 11.30 p.m. on 16th March 1985 a posse of Municipal employees l...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Anand Suryavanshi Vs. Smt. Kalindi Ramchandra Suryavanshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1991Bom315; (1991)93BOMLR567; I(1992)DMC133
1. This appeal by the husband, original petitioner, seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29th August, 1986 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, dismissing the husband's petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The reliefs prayed for were under S. 27(1)(b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on the ground of desertion and under S. 27(1)(d) on the ground of cruelty. Apart from the question of the relief to be granted to the husband, an important question of law which arises in this appeal is as 10 whetherthe wife can be granted maintenance while dismissing the husband's petition. In other words whether the order dismissing the husband's petition is a decree within the meaning of the provisions of S. 37 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Another incidental question which arises is whether an application for interim alimony pendente lite can itself be treated as an application for grant of maintenance to the wife under S. 37 of the said Act while dismissing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »