Mumbai Court July 1991 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.
Neptune Polymers Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT388Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No.GSM-1123/89-AHD, dated 15-5-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Classification List No. 1/86-87 under sub-heading 5406.11 of Central Excise Tariff 1985 for the product Mono Filament Yarn of HDPE and also indicated the effective rate of duty at Rs. 3.52 per kg plus additional duty. The Assistant Collector approved the classification list with the modification of the Tariff Heading 5406.11 to 5406.90. However, the rate of duty and other particulars as claimed by the assessee were not changed. The said classification list was approved on 26-7-1986. In the meanwhile during the period, between filing of the classification list and its approval, the appellants filed a letter of protest, having come to know that the product is chargeable to nil rate of duty. This letter of protest is dated 6-5-1986. In thi...
Heera Textiles Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD312(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89 against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in which he has confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 2,03,582 as brokerage and commission paid under Section 40A(2)(b). The relevant facts are as follows : 2. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessment year is 1988-89 and the accounting period is 31-3-1988. The firm was carrying on business of manufacturing and trading in suitings and shirting cloth.It purchased gray cloth and yarns and after getting it processed from the process houses sold finished, goods. While scrutinizing the accounts, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee firm had paid brokerage of Rs. 2,03,582 to three concerns viz., (1) Shree Krishna Silk Mills, (2) Veekayam Textiles Mills P. Ltd. and (3) Mahawar Silk Synthetics to whom the assessee had effected, sales of Rs. 2,03,58,096.Assessee's Representative when asked to explain why so much brokerage was paid, explained in a let...
Chandrakant Shankar Pradhan Vs. M/S. Verma Investment Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Bom257; 1992(2)BomCR85; 1992(2)MhLj1016
ORDER1. This notice of motion is a glaring example of sad plight and distress of an erstwhile tenant and occupant who allowed his tenement to be demolished relying on the promise of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 --the Builders/ Developers to provide himwith accommodation in new building on ownership basis. Several such erstwhile tenants are the victims of the wrong committed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4. On a careful scrutiny of the defence plea, I have found that each of the defence pleas is false and frivolous and the entire conduct of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 is blameworthy. 2. The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for specific performance of agreement dated 30th April 1979, compensation in sum of Rs. 6 lacs, compensation for abnormal delay caused by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in completing construction of the building and various other reliefs. The plaintiff has impleaded defendants Nos. 5 to 7 as proper parties to the suit. The plaintiff has taken out notice of moti...
Shri Ramkrishna Flour and Besan Mills. Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1991
Reported in: (1991)93BOMLR392
M.M. Qazi, J.1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the petitions they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and runs a Roller Flour Mill at Nagpur and manufactures Ata. Maida and Rawa. For this, it needs wheat in large quantity. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Government of India has framed an Order called 'The Wheat and Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1957 (for short the 'Roller Flour Mills Order'). The petitioner was purchasing wheat from the Food Corporation of India (Respondent No. 3) at a fixed price. The petitioner was not allowed to purchase wheat from the open market under the Roller Flour Mills Order. There is no dispute that the petitioner was carrying on its business within the area of the Market Committee (Respondent No. 2) without obtaining any licence from it. Consequently, the Market Committee, vide notice dated 16.1.1986,...
Ramesh S. JaIn Vs. Collector of Customs (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT285Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Though only stay applications were listed for hearing after hearing Shri Sonawane, Consultant, fully, we have decided to take up the appeals themselves with his consent. All the three appeals are directed against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) bearing--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Appeal Nos. Order in appeal appealed against--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1.C/Stay-261/91 Bom 84/90 BP dated 10-10-1990 C/10/91 Bom2.C/Stay-262/91 Bom 82/90 BP dated 9-10-1990 C/13/91 Bom3.C/Stay-263/91 Bom 83/90 BP dated 10-10-1990 C/14/91 Bom rejecting the appellants appeals as time-barred without going into the merits.2. Shri Sonawane, the Consultant, on behalf of the appellants, pleaded that in all the 3 cases, show cause notices were issued by the department answerable to the Addl. Collector but the final orders have been passed by the Dy. Collector. He fairly conceded that no objection was taken...
Y.S. Sharawat, Asstt. Collector of Customs, Special Investigation and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: 1992CriLJ360
ORDER1. This revision application arises out of order passed u/S. 66 of the N.D.P.S. Act and S. 139 of the Customs Act in Special Case No. 25 of 1989 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under : Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are chargesheeted for the offences punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act and the Customs Act. They are now facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. During the trial after farming of the charge Shipping Bill No. 568738 and the Invoice No. 786 and other documents which are part of the said shipping bill were tendered in evidence through the prosecution witness Shri S. N. Channa, the Appraiser of Customs who had seized the said documents from one of the accused when the two accused, i.e. respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had presented the same before him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not exhibit the said documents on the groun...
Ratnagiri Municipal Council Vs. Harishchandra Shankar Pawar and Anothe ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: (1997)IIILLJ1235Bom
1. These Writ Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn an Order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated July 12, 1991, made in Complaint (ULP) Nos. 198 to 224 of 1989 and 269 of 1989 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The concerned workmen of the Petitioner-Municipal Council had moved the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, by their complaints alleging an unfair labour practice, inter alia, within the meaning of item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act on the ground that they were continued as temporary employees for years together with a view to deprive them of the status and benefits of permanency. After recording the evidence, the Indistrial Court was satisfied that it was factually so. Apart from the Ratangiri Municipal Council, the State of Maharashtra was also impleaded as a party Respondent to the Complaints. By the impugned order, the Industria...
Union of India Vs. B. Sorabjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: 1992LC19(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT46(Bom)
Bharucha, J. 1. This appeals is filed by the Union of India and the Customs authorities against the order of Jahagirdar, J. dated 21st January, 1987 whereby he directed them, upon the writ petition purported to be filed by M/s. B. Sorabjee, to refund the amount 'due to them as per Exhibit 'E' do the petition'. Exhibit E to the petition was a statement that the refund amount of Rs. 28,609,05 was due on the bill of entry whose date and number was set out. The order was passed by Jahagirdar, J. following the judgment of Pendse, J. in writ Petition No. 2840 of 1986, reported in : 1987(27)ELT617(Bom) , Raman Kantilal Bhandari v. Union of India. The Judgment of Pendse, was upheld by a Division Bench, Appeal No. 24 of 1987, Union of India v. Raman Kantilal Bhandari, decided on 26th July, 1990 by Mookerjee, C. J. and S. P. Bharucha, J.. In normal circumstances, therefore, this appeal would have failed. 2. The circumstances here are far from normal. 3. We have before us an affidavit filed in th...
Union of India Vs. Swan Mills Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: 1991LC383(Bombay); 1991(56)ELT44(Bom)
Bharucha, J.1. The complaint of the writ petitioners was that in respect of classification lists submitted by them in respect of yarn after sizing which was sold by them. The excise authorities, who are the appellants before us, were approving the classification lists with the illegal and wrongful condition that the excise duty was to be levied again on the weight of the sizing material. No affidavit in reply was filed by the excise authorities. The learned single Judge noted that the contention raised in the petition was covered by a decision delivered on 4th September, 1981 in Writ Petition No. 455 of 1979. He also noted that a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Leave Petition No. 2114 of 1976, decided on 30th July, 1981 had taken a similar view, and that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the excise authorities there against to the Supreme Court had been summarily dismissed on 19th April, 1982. In view of these facts and the consistent view of this court in sev...
Khajabhai S/O. Abdula Sahab Lukade and ors. Vs. Mohammed Ishaq S/O. Ab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR58
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. A decree for partition passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 144/1981 and sought to be executed in Regular Darkhast No. 14/1983 was sent to the Collector, Osmanabad, for execution under the provisions of section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since some of the property involved was assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, Collector, Osmanabad, was pleased to sent it to Tahsildar, Paranda. Tahsildar, Paranda, directed the District Inspector of Land Record, Osmanabad, to measure the lands and submit a report about proposed partition. Lands were accordingly measured and a report was submitted. A grievance was put forth by the petitioner that all the fertile land is allotted to the share of the respondent whereas he is given the land of inferior quality. But this objection was rejected by Tahsildar, Paranda by his order dated 30th April, 1984, on the ground that the contentions raised by the petitioners are not within his competence and directed t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »