Mumbai Court March 1994 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.
Smt. Asha Arun Gawali Vs. A. Samra, Commr. of Police and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1994
Reported in: 1994(4)BomCR30; 1995CriLJ2250; 1994(1)MhLj1034
H.H. Kantharia, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, who is the wife of one Arun Gawali (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') impugns the detention order dated 27th September 1993 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. The detenu, along with six others, was arrested by the Officers of the Crime Branch, Bombay, on 20th July 1990 in connection with an offence of murder registered at Tardeo Police Station vide their C.R. 287 of 1990. Since the police had invoked the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, the detenu and other were produced before the Designated Court on 23rd July 1990 and were remanded to police custody. On compl...
Globe Accessories (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT736Tri(Mum.)bai
1. For hearing the applicant's appeal on merits, they are required to deposit Rs. 30,528/- towards duty vide Order in Appeal No.GS/1096/BJ/93, dt. 25-11-1993.2. Shri Yakkundi, the ld. Advocate pleads that this duty demand is in respect of the exemption availed of in respect of Notfn. No. 175/86 from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992 when there was a requirement for registering with the Director of Industries. This requirement was subsequently deleted. However, the question arose as to whether during the aforesaid period, the units operating without the registration certificate of the Director of Industries can be denied the small scale exemption or not.He refers to the news item appearing in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 119, wherein it has been reported that the Finance Ministry is contemplating issue of Notification under Section 11C for waiving the duty payable by non-registered S.S.I. units from 1-4-1992 to 21-5-1992. In view of the aforesaid position we grant stay and waiver of recovery of the duty amoun...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: [1994]210ITR783(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 Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court for opinion - '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the repairs and reconstruction cess levied by the Bombay Municipal Corporation is a permissible deduction under the provisions of section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 32,845 incurred by the assessee on the foreign travelling expenses of the employees was deductible as revenue expense, while computing the business income of the assessee 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of Rs. 5,000 being a part of the professional fees paid to Messrs. Mulla and Mulla for drafting an agreement in connection with the investments was justified 4. Whether, on the facts and in t...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Vegetable VitamIn Foods Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Bom)112; [1994]209ITR840(Bom)
ORDERMrs. Sujata Manohar, C. J. 1. All these Income-tax reference relate to the interpretation of section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it stood prior to its amendment under the Bombay Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1987, which came into force on April 21, 1987. 2. For the sake of convenience, we set out the facts in Income-tax Reference No. 305 of 1982. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee was required to pay sales tax under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Owing to financial difficulties, the assessee did not make the payment of sales tax in time as prescribed under the said Act. On account of delay in the payment of sales tax, the assessee was required to pay an additional sum of Rs. 13,800 under the provisions of section 36(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as it was then in force. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount in his Income-tax return on the ground that this amount formed a part of the expenditure...
ScIndia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)119CTR(Bom)489; [1995]211ITR747(Bom)
Mrs. Sujata Manohar, C.J. 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : At the instance of the assessee : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the amount received by the assessee-company in respect of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Rehabilitation Grant Bonds represented income chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, any part of the amount received by the assessee-company apart from the actual interest received in respect of 2 1/2 per cent. of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition Compensation Bonds was chargeable to tax for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to be restricted to Rs. 90,93,431 and Rs. 29,...
Sou. Jamunabai Parmananddas Shah and ors. Vs. Bajirao Seetaram Kalbhor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1995(1)BomCR305
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. A next question of law has been posed for determination in this Second Appeal which basically calls for determination of the issue as to when and under what circumstances can it be said that the character and definition of agricultural land stand altered to non-agricultural land pursuant to permission being granted by the Collector for non-agricultural use. In other words, whether on the passing of an order granting such permission for N.A. use, the lands ceased to be agricultural lands, and therefore, the bar of alienation under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act or for that matter the requirements under section 63 of the that Act which prescribes that permission to purchase by a non-agriculturist will cease to be applicable, are the points in issue. The allied aspect of the matter and one of some importance is raised in the companion Civil Application whereby the appellants who lost their appeal principally on the ground that the original ...
Kajaria Exports Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(52)LC348(Bombay)
ORDERP.S. Patankar, J.1. The Petitioners sought to import 5,000 Metric Tonnes white cement. The goods arrived at Port of Bombay on or about 17.11.1984. The Petitioners filed bills of entry for house consumption and sought clearance of the said goods claiming as an OGL item under Appendix 6, List 8, Part III, Serial No. 33 of Import Policy for April 1984/March 1985 (hereafter referred as 'Import Policy). However, clearance was not permitted. Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice to the Petitioners. In the said show cause notice it was alleged that item cement including clinker is canalised and import thereof is only permitted to be made by STC under Open General Licence as per the conditions laid down at Sr. No. 8, Part A, Appendix 5 of AM-1985 Policy and it cannot be covered under OGL Appendix 6, List 8, Part III as that only covers goods which are not restricted or banned specifically in any other portion of the policy. The price shown was also disputed. However, we are not conc...
Galaxy Chemicals and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1994
Reported in: 1994(52)LC347(Bombay)
ORDERM.L. Pendse, J.1. The controversy in this petition stands concluded by our decision dated March 11, 1994 delivered in Writ Petition No. 1895 of 1985. In view of that judgment, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by prayer (a) of the petition.Shri Bulchandani, earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that even though firm commitments were made by opening irrevocable letter of credit before the date of issue of notice that would not make any difference and the import was not valid. In support of submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Division Bench and to which one of us (Pendse, J.) was party in : 1993ECR575(Bombay) (Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India). We are afraid that the observations made in the judgment are not properly appreciated. The observations were made in respect of import of item-- fatty acids' and fatty acid oils'--which were canalised. The observations in the head-note that no exception is possible even in resp...
Collr. of C Ex. and Customs Vs. Sterlite Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)LC149Tri(Mum.)bai
1. The aforesaid Reference Application has been brought by the Revenue in respect of this Bench's Order No. 1762-64/93-WRB, dt. 8-9-1993, whereunder the aforesaid three appeals filed by the Respondents herein were allowed by this Bench. The issue involved in the aforesaid three appeals relates to extension of MODVAT Credit in respect of 'paints' which is brought by the Respondents for marking on the drums of wires and cables, before they are delivered to the Customers at the factory gate. This Bench appreciated that as per the terms of contract with the customers namely the Telecommunication Department, these wires and cables are to be marked with the particulars and specifications and also they are to be marked in specified coloured paints and these particulars could not be marked on the final product themselves; but they could be marked only on the wooden drums, which contain the wires and cables. This Bench allowed the MODVAT Credit holding that the department is not justified in r...
Autoalarm Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1994
Reported in: (1994)(46)ECC315
1. The appeal is directed against the Order No S/10-2056/85ACC (IV), dt. 4-1-1986 of the Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, ordering confiscation vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, of the consignment declared to contain Ionisation Smoke Sensor for Detectors, with an option to pay fine of Rs 85,000/- in lieu of confiscation.2. The consignment imported was found to contain smoke detectors valued at Rs. 1,63,996/- and sensor guns valued at Rs. 5194/- and clearance thereof was claimed vide Entry No. 529 of Appx. 6 List 8 Part I of the Import Policy AM 1985-88. The department however objected to it on the ground that the subject goods were complete instrument covered under Appx. 10, Serial No. 8 of the same Policy Book, and required a specific licence for the same. Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation vide Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, therefore, was contemplated, but the appellants expressly waived the same. Personal hearing was therefore granted, where they pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »