Mumbai Court July 1991 Judgments
Swastika Woollen Mills and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: (1993)(48)LC362Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid there appeals having more or less similar facts and identical issues were argued together by both the sides and hence they are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. The particulars of appeal, orders appealed against and penalties imposed on the appellants under the Customs Act are given below:1. Name of the Appeal No. O/O No. & date Penalty imposed appellants M/s. Swastika 850/86 S/10/66/S6-L SIIB Rs. 80,000/- Woollen Mills DRI/BZU/101/Apprg.2. -do- 851/86 S/10-54/86- L.SIIB Rs. 4.25 lakhs DRI/BZU/101/Apprg.3. M/s. Ocean 851/86 S/10/62/86-LS IIB Rs. 1.20 lakhs Woollen DRI/BZU/10l/Apprg 3. Though in the above orders passed by the Collector, the goods have been ordered absolute confiscation, none of the appellants challenge that portion of the order. They plead that they have abandoned the goods even before arrival of the goods. The challenge in all these three appeals is only against the penalties aforesaid, imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Muller (Maersk Line) Vs. Collector of Customs (Prev.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: (1992)(39)ECC113
1. The owners of the Shipping vessel M.V. MAERSK TEMPO, have filed the appeal challenging the order-in-orginal No. S/1-4-690/86P dated 8-3-1989 of the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, s" far as it relates to ordering confiscation of container No. 114975, vide Section 118(a) of the Customs Act with option to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in lieu of confiscation, and further directing to recover the said amount from the bank guarantee furnished on release of the same under a bond.2. On 24-10-1986, the aforesaid vessel arrived from Singapore to Bombay, and off-loaded amongst others, the subject container. On the prior information received, the officers of the Customs detained the same, and on examination of the contents, recovered contraband items like VCR, pocket calculators etc. totally valued at Rs. 59,79,000/-.The container, when examined was found to have lock and seals of the shippers/ (consignors) intact. Further investigations in relation thereto were conducted and finally a sho...
Tag this Judgment!S.R. I. Roller Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Etc. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom79; 1992(59)ELT361(Bom)
ORDERMrs. Sujata Manohar, J.1. Thesewrit petitions challenge the levy of inspection fees in respect of inspection inter alia, of plants and seeds imported into India. These fees are levied under clauses 3(12) and 12 of the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order 1989, issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government By Section 3(1) of theDestructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. The levy of these inspection and supervision charges under the said order has been challenged in a large number of writ petitions which are before us today. It is an accepted position that the three petitions being decided by us cover all the point at issue in the pending writ petitions. We have allowed advocates appearing in these other writ petitions also to address us on the various common questions of law which arise in these writ petitions. Accordingly we have had the benefit of listening to the able arguments of Dr. D. V. Chandrachud and Mr. S. A. Divan along wi...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.i. Roller Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1992(59)ELT361(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the levy of inspection fees in respect of inspection inter alia, of plants and seeds imported into India. These fees are levied under Clauses 3(12) and 12 of the Plants, Fruits and Seeds (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 1989, issued in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 3(1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914. The levy of the inspection and supervision charges under the said order has been challenged in a large number of writ petitions which are before us today. It is an accepted position that the three petitions being decided by us cover all the points at issue in the pending writ petitions. We have allowed advocates appearing in these other writ petitions also to address us on the various common questions of law which arises in these writ petitions. Accordingly we have had the benefit of listening to the able arguments of Dr. D. V. Chandrachud and Mr. S. A. Divan along with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Texind Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT59(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and carries on business of import and export of goods, the Company imported copper scrap of Birch and Berry Grades and submitted bills of entry for home consumption on March 27, 1982. The Customs authorities sought to levy and collect additional duty of customs equal to excise duty leviable on copper scrap under Item No. 26A (1b) of the Central Excise Tariff at the rate of Rs. 3,300/-per Metric Ton and 80% ad valorem basic duty. The petitioners claimed that the scrap consists of broken, damaged or discarded remnants sold as junk. The petitioners claimed that there is no transformation or bringing into existence of any different or distinctive article as a result of treatment, labour or manipulation, and as such there is no manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. The petitioners claimed that levy of additional duty is ultra of the charging Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Devgonda Raygonda Patil Vs. Shamgonda Raygonda Patil and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom189; 1991(3)BomCR165; (1991)93BOMLR817; 1991(2)MhLj1470
1. Three points arise for my determination in this Second Appeal (i) whether the plaintiff was adopted validly and legally on 18-10-1959? (ii) if validly adopted, then can he have right in the joint family property of his natural birth? and (iii) was the suit within limitation?Few facts are as follows :--2. The Appellant Devgonda through his next friend by name Nemgonda Balgonda Patil filed the Suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the joint family properties of his natural birth. It was alleged that Devgonda was married on 15-5-1946 and was having good health for one year thereafter. However, thereafter he became lunatic and was not mixing with public. His natural father wanted to cut off his ties and to give all the property to his another son, Shamgonda, (defendant No. 1) and therefore, plaintiff was given in adoption to one Shrimati W/o Tatya Patil Defendant No. 2 on 18th October, 1959. The said adoption was invalid and illegal because (1) Devgonda was lu...
Tag this Judgment!Nazeem Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs and Another
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR661; 1992CriLJ390
ORDER1. At the outset, Mr. Arun Gupte, learned Counsel representing the Department, has challenged the maintainability of this application by pointing out that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is no specific power of review vested in a superior Court and that, consequently, this application itself is legally still-born. Admittedly, the Customs Department had originally filed Criminal Application No. 1100 of 1990 against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dated 10-5-1990. The Department had also filed a companion Criminal Application No. 1101 of 1990 against an order of the same date wherein the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in favour of the husband had been assailed. The husband's case i.e., the companion application, has been disposed of by me through judgment and order dated 20-6-1991. Criminal Application No. 1100 of 1990 was heard by me on 3-5-1991 and a detailed order came to be passed on that day, which was...
Tag this Judgment!Paragon Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991(56)ELT335(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and, inter alia, manufactures synthetic fibre fabrics, suitings, shirtings, sarees, etc. For the manufacture of the said fabrics, the Company imports polyester filament yarn of various deniers. The goods on importation are liable to customs duty under Section 12 of the Custom Act, 1962 at the rate specified under heading 51.01/03 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act empowers levy of duty equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and this duty is known as countervailing duty. The goods imported by the Company are liable to additional duty or countervailing duty equivalent to the excise duty as levied on the like articles produced or manufactured in India. 2. The goods like the imported goods when manufactured in India are liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff It...
Tag this Judgment!Prakash Construction and Engineering Co. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1991LC11(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT58(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality or order dated December 17, 1983 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-11, holding that the petitioners are liable to pay any excise duty in respect of manufacture of 'Hot Mix Asphalt' and the duty leviable is Rs. 2,52,325.73 for manufacture of quantity valued at Rs. 45,82,706.80 between the period commencing from June 18, 1977 and ending with September 24, 1979. The impugned order is unsustainable and only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business of road contractors. For the road construction activities, the petitioners installed two Asphalt Mix Plants, one at Andheri and another at Turbhe. In the said asphalt plants, asphalt mix is prepared and which is required for the purpose of construction or road. The asphalt mix is not sold in the market a...
Tag this Judgment!Ramniklal Tulsidas Kotak and ors. Vs. Varsha Builders and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1991
Reported in: 1992(2)BomCR492
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This notice of motion is taken out by the plaintiffs for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as receiver of the suit land described in Exhibit A to the plaint, for an interim injection restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 13 from carrying on any construction work on the suit land or creating any third party rights in respect thereof or any structure which may be put thereon and also for an interim injunction retraining 14th defendant. Corporation from issuing Completion Certificate or Occupation Certificate in respect of any construction put up on the suit land or any part thereof and for costs of the notice of motion.2. Relying on the registered deed of conveyance dated 12th September, 1966 duly executed by defendants Nos. 4 and 6 for valuable consideration, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit C to the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land i.e. the land bearing Survey No. 198 Hissa No....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »