Mumbai Court September 1993 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.
Mazdoor Congress and ors. Vs. N.L. Bhalchandra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(2)BomCR369; [1994(68)FLR122]; (1994)IILLJ692Bom
A.V. Savant, J.1. This is a Petition by the Mazdoor Congress, which is a Trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and by two other workmen of the 2nd Respondent company viz. Acme Manufacturing Company Limited, seeking to challenge the Award dated August 31, 1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in a reference made by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said reference was made for adjudication of the dispute set out in the Schedule to the order of reference, which Schedule reads as under:'i) Whether the services of the workmenb1 of Wadala Unit of Acme ., Bombay, who were in the employment of the company on or about April 3, 1977 were terminated by notice dated May 4, 1977, which is effective from August 3, 1977 or any other date? ii) If the services of the workmen are not legally terminated, what should be the quantum of compensation and/or benefits payable to them?' The reference arose in the following...
Madhavdas Damodardas Gujar and ors. Vs. Mahadu Keru Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR509
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. Certain novel arguments were advanced before me in the course of the hearing of this petition which essentially concern facets of the Limitation Act, 1963. One of the contentions advanced was that de hors the question of limitation when an application is presented to an appellate authority 22 years after the passing of the original order that it is open to the authority concerned to examine the merits of the original order and the sequitur of this argument is that if such examination indicates that the original order is a void order that it can be struck down regardless of the time-bar prescribed by the Limitation Act. In substance, the argument canvassed is that an order which is a nullity in law can be challenged at any time, even decades later, because it is basically no order, and conversely that limitation applies only in the case of 'legal' orders. To my mind, the entire submission is totally confused and wholly untenable. A few of the facts giving rise to the...
Autofield Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. and Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT290Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in- original No.III/CEX/1991, dated 27th Jan., 1991, directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 38,925 /- towards the credit wrongly taken on the ground that though the declaration contained the description of the item and also mentioning the chapter heading, the Gate Passes, under which the said items were received, mentioned the different chapter heading. The adjudicating authority has also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Heard Shri S. Somani, the Managing Director of the firm and Shri Harnek Singh, the ld. JDR.3. Considering the submissions made and going by the record and the order passed by the adjudicating authority, there is no dispute over the issue that the item for which the modvat credit is taken has been correctly described as hard facing rods and the chapter heading mentioned thereunder was 7501. ,It is also not disputed that on the basis of the Gate P...
Nihon Electronic Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1995)LC347Tri(Mum.)bai
1. Since the prima facie ground canvassed by Shri Kumar, the learned advocate calls for disposal of the appeal on the short ground and the matter calls for a remand, with the consent of both sides, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself. For this limited purpose the following facts are recorded : 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of TV sets and other consumer electronic items. A show cause notice was issued alleging duty evasion and irregular availment of Modvat credit by removal of inputs received, without payment of duty. The said show cause notice was adjudicated after observing all the principles of natural justice and no dispute is being raised about that. However, during the adjudication proceedings, certain work-sheets have been given by the appellants alleging wrong calculation of the duty amount and the Collector have agreed to take it on record but instead of getting the reconciliation done by himself for accepting the worksheets submitted by the appe...
Antifriction Bearings Corpn. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1995)(75)ELT708Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 3/ MP/85, dated 27-2-1985 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Baroda, ordering confiscation of 8654 roller bearings valued at Rs. 6,02,231.77 with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules.2. On 23-9-1983, the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory premises of the appellants and found that the RG 1 register was written only up to 21-9-1983 whereas the other documents showed that there was a production subsequent thereto. It was also noticed that the goods stored in the bonded store room did not tally with the goods entered in RG 1 register and some of them remained unaccounted. Further scrutiny indicated that the appellant had not entered the production during the period 15-9-1983 to 20-9-1983 and had cleared the goods under Gate Passes. They had also removed certain items under Gate P...
Bralco Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: (1994)120CTR(Bom)420; [1994]206ITR477(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the assessee the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal to this court for opinion : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred in connection with the foreign tours of the assessee's managing director was deductible in arriving at the assessee's total income for the years under consideration (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that surtax liability was not admissible deduction for the years under consideration (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the development rebate was not admissible on rolling mill rolls for the years under consideration (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified holding that the benefit under secti...
Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1993LC413(Bombay); 1993(68)ELT344(Bom)
Sujata Manohar, Actg. C.J.1. The petitioners carry one business, inter alia, of manufacturing tyres and tubes and exporting the same. During the years 1978-79, the petitioners company has exported to Pakistan Nylon Tyres manufactured by the petitioner No. 1 out of material on which duties had been paid. It is an accepted position that under Section 74 and 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the export of these Nylon Tyres, the petitioners were entitled to drawback at the rate to be fixed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette. In respect of the export of these tyres to Pakistan for the year 1978 the Government of India, Ministry of Financed fixed the duty drawback rates for the period 1-1- 1978 to 31-12-1978 by Notification no F/GOI/2001/18/78-DBK, dated 9-2- 1979. The petitioner accordingly, by their letter dated 4-5-1979 addressed to the Superintendent, Customs (DBK), Amritsar, Punjab sent 23 claim bills in respect of export Bylon Tyres effected by th...
Mangalagauri Trikamalal Verma Vs. Dr. Mrs. Kamal Anil Adhiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1993
Reported in: 1994(1)BomCR718
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This petition once again raises some fine contentions that have been very ably canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing on both sides and which require a determination by this Court. The first of them concerns the position in law with regard to a charge under section 13(1)(k) of the Rent Act where the allegation against the respondent tenant, who incidentally is a lady Doctor, is to the effect that even though in the year 1966 the premises were let out to her for running a Maternity Home, that she had ceased to use the same for that purpose and had consequently committed an action of breach. Where it is undisputed that the tenant has ceased to run a Maternity Home in the premises since about the year 1970-72 but where she contends that she had been residing in the premises all along and that the ground of change of user is therefore not actionable, the debate has centred around the important question as to how and under what circumstances is this ground to be held...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Birla Consultants Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: [1994]206ITR458(Bom)
Dr. B.P. Saraf, J.1. By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this court for opinion : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that while computing the value of perquisites, depreciation on furniture, flat, air-conditioners and refrigerators cannot be taken into account ?' 2. The relevant assessment years is assessment year 1974-75. The assessee is a company. It owns a Deluxe flat in the building known as II-Palazzo, Malabar Hill, Bombay - 6, covering an area of 2,840 sq. ft. During the relevant previous year in terms of the resolution of the board of directors of the company dated May 30, 1972, on and from July 1, 1972, a portion of the said flat comprising one bed room with common use of drawing and dining room was allowed to be used by one of its directors, Shri A. V. Birla. The area of the portion...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Maharashtra Extraction Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1993
Reported in: [1994]209ITR41(Bom)
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench Pune, has referred the following question to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that on the merits of the case section 104 was not applicable to the assessee-company (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that section 104 was not applicable to the assessee-company in view of the provisions of section 104(4) relying upon the Tribunal decision in Income-tax Appeal No. 289/(PN) of 1977-78, dated September 23, 1978, in the assessee's case which has not become final ?' 2. The assessee carries on business of extracting deoiled cake and oil. The assessee does not own a solvent plant but has taken a solvent plant on lease owned b...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »