Mumbai Court June 1995 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.
Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT106Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 945/90 BCH (F. No. S/49-46/90 Misc.), dated 13-6-1990 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) confirming the order in original No. S-10-173/88 Gr. 7, dated 24-11-1988 of the Dy. Collector of Customs, Bombay ordering confiscation of the export consignment with an option to pay redemption fine of Rs. 40,000/- and also imposing personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant.2. The appellants filed a shipping bill for export of tyres and tubes and declared a specific weight against those items. However, on verification, in so far as tyres with tubes were concerned, the weight was short by 742.50 kgs whereas the tubes were short by 1162.50 kgs though number-wise both the items tally with declaration made in the shipping bill. The appellants when asked to explain the same came forward with a plea that the difference in the weight showed a consistent shortage to the extent of 872 gms per bundle which could be due to some malfunction...
Krishna Kumari Chamanlal and Another Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR645(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this petition, the original petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated December 9, 1985, passed by respondent No. 1 under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereby the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act on the firm for the assessment years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner died. In the present case, both the authorities below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that in 1965, search and seizure operations had taken place which detected bogus hundi notes; that the assessee had agreed to surrender Rs. 2,15,500, Rs. 23,74,100 and Rs. 28,46,200 in respect of the assessment years 1960-61, 1963-64 and 1964-65, respectively. Both the authorities below have come to the conclusion that although opportunity was provided to the petitioner pursuant to the penalty notice, the assessee did not avail of the said opport...
Cipla Limited Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: 1995(80)ELT17(Bom)
1. By this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge order dated August 14, 1986 passed by respondent No. 3 as also order dated February 24, 1987 passed by respondent No. 2. Briefly, the petitioners seek to challenge demand made by respondent No. 3 to pay duty amounting to Rs. 22,99,044/-. Facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows :- Petitioners manufacture life saving drug 'Refampicin Capsules' from bulk drug known as 'Refampicin'. On March 1, 1979, Central Government issued Notification No. 45 under the Customs Act exempting the bulk drug 'Refampicin' from whole of Customs duty if the said bulk drug is used in the manufacture of life saving drug viz.'Rifampicin Capsules'. On September 22, 1981, Central Government issued Notification No. 208/81 exempting above mentioned life saving drug viz.'Rifampicin Capsules' also from whole of Customs duty. Pursuant to the said Notifications, petitioners imported 950 kgs. of above mentioned bulk drug 'Rifampicin' for use in the m...
Bhimsha Subanna Pawar and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: 1996(1)BomCR212
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. The appellants aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 29-5-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 271 of 1992 connected with Sessions Case No. 22 of 1993 convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years R.I. under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C.; to one year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further undergo four months R.I. under section 323 read with section 149 I.P.C.; to three years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months each under section 148 I.P.C.; and to two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months R.I. under section 147 I.P.C., the sentences to run concurrently, have come up in appeal before us.2. The prosecution case as emerging from the recitals contained in the FIR and the evidence of ...
A.V.C. Investment and Trading P. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Regional Provident ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: [1996(73)FLR1385]; (1996)IILLJ473Bom
D.R. Dhanuka, J.1. This petition involves consideration, inter alia, of the following questions:'(1) Whether the A.V.C. Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be treated as a part of the establishment of J.K.F. Enterprises for the purpose of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952?(2) Whether respondent No. 1 was justified in granting Sub-Code No. Goa/10121-D to the A.V.C. Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and calling upon petitioner No. 1 to make contribution to the provident fund for the period commencing from April 1, 1984 ?'2. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 has not passed any speaking order as required by law. It was incumbent on respondent No. 1 to hold the requisite inquiry in the matter and pass a speaking order. It is the case of petitioner No. 1 that petitioner No. 1 is totally independent of J.K.F. Enterprises and the petitioner, A.V.C. Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. and J.K.F. Enterprises are independent entities. Respondent No...
Dhanraj Restaurant Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Mumbai)390
ORDERT. A. BUKTE, J. M. :The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dt. 25th Nov., 1993, on 9 grounds. Ground no. 9 is general in nature which does not require any finding.2. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 29,31,157 to the income of the assessee for there asst. yr. 1990-91. The assessment was framed no the basis of the seized materials relating to a subsequent year i.e. 1991-92. The CIT(A) accepted the accounts maintained by the assessee in respect of foodstuff. However, he did not accept the accounts maintained in respect of sales of liquor and beer. Moreover, the comparable cases in similar business were not brought on record for confirming the additions. The addition confirmed in respect of sale of liquor and beer is Rs. 18,59,183 and an addition of Rs. 14,50,000 has been confirmed on the basis of seized materials of M/s Vishesh Developers, a sister concern of the assessee. This amount of Rs. 14,50,000 was a mere summary of the receipts an...
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT581(Bom)
1. The petitioners am manufacturing paints and other products, one such product is known as 'Apester 5262' since 1968. According to them the said product is a saturated type of polyester Synthetic Resins. 2. It appears that the petitioners filed a classification list but that list did not find favour with the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, dated 30th October, 1974, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs by his order dated 14th July, 1975 confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the Government of India. This revision was disposed of by the order bearing No. 554 of 1980, dated 13th June, 1980 by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India. Para 2 of the order makes it clear that the Revisional Autho...
Chhaganlal Kasturchand and Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(79)ELT547(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. By this petition the 1st Petitioner-company seek to challenge the order passed by the Respondents denying duty drawback to the Petitioners in respect of cotton bleached candy exported by the Petitioner under Duty Drawback Rules. The relevant entry is sub-serial No. 2617 under which the description of the goods entitled to duty drawback was as follows : Cotton Fabrics (Other than handloom fabrics) not covered by S.S. No. 2616 when yarn dyed/piece dyed/printed in the body.' 2. By public notice dated 11-10-1984 the Directorate of Drawback clarified that Drawback on dye content was admissible only in cases where the goods were predominantly printed and that only a few thin lines of printing would not be entitled for drawback. By a clarification dated 8-10-1994 issued by the Director (Drawback) it was clarified that the goods which were not predominantly printed would not be entitled to the benefit of duty draw back. In view of the said clarification the Deputy Collector ...
Balu S/O Rakhmaji Khamkar and anr. Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR335
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J. 1. Heard Shri V.S. Bedre, counsel for the applicant and Shri V. B. Ghatage, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.2. Applicant, who is accused in Crime No. 31 of 1995 registered by Rahuri Police Station for allegedly having committed offence punishable under sections 20 21, 22, 25 and 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 prays for bail by virtue of the provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant was found in possession of Ganja and he was arrested on 11-2-1995. Therefore, the charge sheet should have been submitted within 90 days thereafter.4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14-3-95, Police Constable Prakash Rukhmaji Padale-Bakkle No. 776 of Rahuri Police Station had been to Special Judge's Court. But the said charge sheet was not accepted by the concerned Clerk and Nazir and, therefore, a report came to be submitted to the Police Inspector at Rahuri by the said...
Amarjit Singh Vs. R.N. Gupta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR538
R.G. Vaidyanatha, J. 1. This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 24-3-1995 in Application No. 41 of 1994 on the file of Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division, Bombay. Heard both the sides.2. The respondent filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner before the Competent Authority alleging that the petitioner is staying in the suit premises as a licensee and since the period of licence has expired, he is liable to be evicted.The petitioner's contention was that he is not a licensee, but he is a tenant in possession, and therefore, entitled to protection of the Rent Act.After recording evidence and hearing both the sides, the learned Authority has held that the transaction between the parties is one of leave and licence and since the period of licence has expired, he directed the licensee to vacate the suit premises. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come up in revision.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the questi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »