Mumbai Court August 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.
Bharat Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: (1993)(63)ELT289Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This is an appeal directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. 2412/86 BCH, dated 11-12-1986 rejecting the appellants' appeal.2. The appellants imported evaporators for car air-conditioners and claimed clearance of the goods against REP Licence issued against export product A-46 category. However, the department raised objection that the licence is not valid to cover the import because the evaporators referred to in the shopping lists attached to the licence should be of the type required for manufacture of the export product - 'machine tools' - the item specified against A-46. In the adjudication proceedings held by the Dy. Collector, the goods were ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 40,000/-. When the matter was taken up in appeal before Collector (Appeals) by the appellants, the same was rejected. Hence the present appeal before me.3. Shri Deshpande, the Id. Advocate pleaded that the licence is specifically endorsed for t...
Daniele Bevilacqua Vs. Second Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD362(Mum.)
1. The main issue involved in this appeal is whether Rs. 2,45,644 paid on behalf of the assessee towards his hotel expenses by his employers, during his temporary stay in India, is exigible to tax. The other issue involved is regarding charging of interest under Section 217 of the Act.2, The assessee is an individual, as Italian national and is assessed as "not ordinarily resident". The assessment year is 1983-84 and the relevant previous year is the financial year ended on 31-3-1983.3. The assessee is an employee of Columbia Pictures Industries Inc.U.S.A. (U.S.A. Company). The U.S.A. Company was given distribution right of the film 'Gandhi'. The U.S.A. Company has an agent in India namely, Columbia Film of India Ltd. (Indian Company). The Indian Company gave a letter of appointment to the assessee, who was in India, on certain terms and conditions contained in the said letter dated 6-7-1982. The said letter reads as under: Under instructions from our New York principals, I am pleased...
Neo Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: 1994LC472(Bombay); 1992(58)ELT24(Bom)
Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Deodhar waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 19, 1991 passed by Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division H, Bombay, confirming the demand of Rs. 1,42,092.74 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The petitioners were sanctioned refund claim of Rs. 1,42,092.74 by Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated September 14, 1989. After the amount was paid to the petitioners, the Assistant Collector felt that as the petitioners had recovered the duty refunded from the Customers/buyers from time to time and as per the settled law, it amounts to unjust enrichment and, therefore, the refund claim appears to be erroneously granted. The Assistant Collector served a show cause notice dated January 18, 1990 on the petitioners to explain why the refund should not be reco...
Kusum Engineering Works Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: 1991LC181(Bombay); 1992(58)ELT3(Bom)
Pendse, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Mehta waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 2. The short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether there is any justification for the respondents not to implement the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) on October 4, 1988. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners are the manufacturers of switches and fuse units, D.B. Board, spare parts, etc. The petitioners have filed refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,51,273.40 in respect of excess duty paid for the period commencing from June 11, 1987 and ending with November 11, 1987. The petitioners claimed that excess duty was paid without taking into consideration the value of the export clearance. The refund claim was submitted on January 21, 1988. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, directed refund of an amount of Rs. 1,22,69...
Kusum Engineering Works and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1991
Reported in: 1991(37)LC16(Bombay)
M.L. Pendse, J.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Deodhar waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.2. The petitioners No. 1-M/s. Kusum Engineering Works-is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing various electrical items including switch and fuse units. The manufactured articles are liable to payment of excise duty. The petitioners filed revised classification list on April 1, 1989 seeking approval under Heading 8537 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act as amended in the year 1986. The petitioners also informed that till the date of approval of the revised classification list duty would be paid at higher rate under protest, in terms of earlier approved classification list. The earlier approved list required the petitioners to pay duty under Heading 8536.90 and the duty leviable being 20% ad valorem. Under Heading 8537, duty payable in only 15% ad valorem. The claim of the petitioners that duty is payable under 1 leading 8537 was...
Buckau Wolf India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: (1994)(69)ELT412Tri(Mum.)bai
1. All the three appeals, having the same issue (but facts being different) were argued together by both the sides. Hence, they are proposed to be disposed of by the common order.2. The three appeals are directed against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) as per details below : 3. In all the aforesaid cases, the Collector (Appeals) has rejected the appellants' appeals against the endorsement made by the Supdt.requesting them to file separate refund claims in respect of certain alleged excess payments made in RT 12 returns for which they claimed credit in PLA to be authorised by the Supdt. The Collector (Appeals) has held in all the three cases that the Supdt.'s endorsement advising them to file refund claims is perfectly in order and hence rejected their appeals. The present appeals are against the said orders of the Collector (Appeals).4. While recording the facts, we would deem it proper to bring out the details in each case for proper appreciation of the legal arguments from bot...
New Vinod Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: 1991LC18(Bombay); 1992(58)ELT4(Bom)
Pendse, J.Rule, returnable forthwith. Shri Rege waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel. 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated July 2, 1991 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division 'H', Bombay. By the impugned order the Assistant Collector rejected refund claim of Rs. 2,36,003.91 under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, and confirmed the demand of Rs. 77,187/- against the petitioner under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 2. The petitioners had filed refund claim for the period commencing from April 9, 1986 to April 23, 1986 on September 11, 1986. The petitioners claimed that CEGAT had already decided that the recovery of duty by the Department was without any authority of law. The petitioners claimed refund of duty and this claim has been rejected by the Assistant Collector only on the ground that as the petitioners had recovered duty f...
Krishnarao Baburao Dere Vs. Shivaji Dnyanu Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: 1991(3)BomCR420
P.S. Patankar, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is in respect of interpretation of the expression 'arising out of the use of a motor vehicle' contained in section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This question is concluded by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 17th July 1991 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14822 of 1990.2. A few facts are as follows:---3. On October 29, 1987 at about 3 A.M. a collision took place between a petrol tanker bearing Registration No. MKL-7461 and a truck bearing Registration No. MEH-4197 on the National Highway No. 4 near village Kavathe, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The petrol tanker was proceedings from Pune to Bangalore and the truck was proceeding on the opposite side. As a result of the said collision, the petrol tanker went off the road and fell on its left side. As a result of the overturning of the petrol tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7-15 A.M...
Dulichand S/O Puran Katre and anr. Vs. Smt. Sheela Wd/O Lakhanlal Sahu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1991
Reported in: 1993(3)BomCR604
B.U. Wahane, J.1. At the outset, it needs mention that inspite of the order dated 11th March, 1981, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in Criminal Revision Application No. 63 of 1980, Lakhanlal and another v. Dulichand and two others, by which the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Misc. Criminal Case No. 62 of 1980, and also the order dated 27-10-1980, were quashed and set aside, neither the parties nor their learned Counsel, took pains to read and try to understand the implications of the order dated 11-3-1981 and, therefore, continued the proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C., filing revision applications for the last more than ten years. The order dated 11-3-1981 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhandara was challenged in this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 116 of 1981. By the judgment and order dated 5-8-1981, this Court confirmed the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Thus, none cared of the orders refe...
Shri Dudhaganga Vedhaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Shamrao G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1991
Reported in: (1994)IIILLJ108Bom
B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. This petition, though purported to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, can substantially be entertained under Article 227, as the same reliefs can be granted thereunder. Consequently, I have entertained this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner has impugned an order of the Industrial Court, dated 2nd September, 1985, made in Appeal (1C) No. 10 of 1984 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The salient facts leading to the present petition are as under :- 4. The respondent is in the employment of the petitioner, which is a co-operative society manufacturing sugar, since 14th November, 1963. The respondent joined initially as a Slip Boy, was made a Clerk Grade IV from month May, 1972 and thereafter made permanent. During the crushing season of 1982-83, he was made Cane Yard Supervisor and called upon to perform the duti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »