Mumbai Court March 1996 Judgments

Modern Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT304Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No.SG-4/85/S/10-45/85 SIIB, dated 10-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2.1 In the said order, the Collector held that 4200 sets of Baby Beds sought to be exported under three Shipping Bills as liable to confiscation. The goods were sought to be exported with declaration that the goods are exported against DEEC scheme in respect of which they have applied for DEEC licence. As per policy provisions, goods can be exported in advance in fulfilment of export obligation, which may be specified in the licence. The description of export goods was declared to be "Baby bed sets made of 100% polyester with upholstery of cotton fabric" giving the weight of polyester content in each piece in the set. On examination of the goods, the examining officer has reported that fibre stuffed in the pieces comprising the set was found to be polyester soft waste as against the declaration in the S/B as polyester fibre (100% polyester).2.2 Samp...

Electronic Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)(65)LC80Tri(Mum.)bai

1. Today only the Stay Petition was listed for hearing. Considering the issue involved granting waiver against pre-deposit, the entire appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appellants who are Government of India, undertaking have obtained the sanction from the committee of Secretaries for pursuing the matter, qualified by observation that they should within the period of one month, after the approval is granted, attempt to sort out the issue with the department. Mr. M.H. Patil submits that vide their letter dt. 14.11.1995, they were written to the Member of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, for resolving the dispute. He submits that this has not been responded to and pleads that therefore, the matter should be taken up for consideration.3. Shri Krishnamurthy, the Id. JDR at this stage submits that the appellants have not been able to show whether any further progress has been made in this matter. He further has no instructions from the 3oard in this regard and with the short ti...

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Lee and Muirhead Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in: (1997)60ITD57(Mum.)

1. ITA No. 162 (Bom.)/90 is a penalty appeal from order of concealment passed under section 271(1)(c). ITA No. 8472 (Bom.)/90 is again an appeal against penalty order passed under section 273(2)(aa) for shortfall in payment of advance tax. ITA No. 8008 (Bom.)/89 is an appeal arising out of the order passed under section 104 of the I.T.Act for levy of additional tax for non-distribution of dividends. All these appeals are by the same assessee and they relate to assessment year 1983-84. The penalty appeal for concealment arises out of the order of the CIT (A)-VI, Bombay, dated 18.10.1989. The penalty appeal, which is the subject matter of ITA No. 8472 (Bom.)/90, arises out of the order of the CIT(A)-VI, Bombay, dated 6.7.1990 and ITA No. 8008 (Bom)/89 arises out of the order of the CIT(A)-V, Bombay, dated 17-7-1989.2. The central point involved in all these appeals is about the donation of Rs. 5 lakhs said to have been made by the assessee company to M/s. Sigma Medical Aid & Researc...

Super Leasing Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. These are cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dt. 10th Oct., 1989. As common points are involved, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the appeals of the assessee. The first common ground for all the years is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the compensation received from leasing out the premises should be assessed as income from house property and not as business income as claimed by the assessee.3. The CIT(A) has indicated the facts relating to this issue succinctly and paras 2 and 2.1 of his order read as follows : "2. The assessee is a company incorporated on 9th April, 1984. The main objects of the assessee-company was to carry on the business of leasing, hiring, selling, letting, hire purchase and hire purchase financing of all types of plant and machineries, industrial and office equipments, appliances, vehicl...

Sunil Baburao Shirsat Vs. Satish Sahney, Commissioner of Police for Gr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR370; 1996CriLJ2489; 1996(2)MhLj765

Sahai, J.1. By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 6th May, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (respondent No. 1) detaining him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. 2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner have been detailed in the grounds of detention which were served on the petitioner on 9th May, 1995. The basis of the petitioner's detention in the aforesaid grounds appear to be three incidents in each of which the petitioner was involved. (i) The first is alleged to have taken place on 9th January 1994, on the basis of which C.R. No. 16/94 at police station Kurla under section 302/34 IPC read with section 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act read with section 37(a)(i) of the Bombay Police Act was registered; (ii) The second incident is alleged to have taken place on 6th May, 1994 and on the basis of the same, C.R. No. 203/94 under section 387, read with 34 IPC was registered next day (on 7th May, 1994) at 3 ...

Managing Director, Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvind Waman Unhava ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: [1996(74)FLR2083]

Majithia, J.1. Rule. With the consent of the parties' Counsel Rule made returnable forthwith. Mrs. Nishita Mhatre waives service for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is only a proforma party. His order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner, M/s. Bharat Containers Pvt. Ltd., has challenged the Award dated July 17, 1995 passed by Industrial Court, Bombay, published in Maharashtra Government Gazette Part I-L, dated January 25, 1996, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Respondent No. 1 workman was discharged from service for remaining absent from duty without leave for a period of 22 days in the year 1987. A domestic enquiry was conducted and thereafter the punishment of discharge from service was imposed. 4. On a request made by the workman, reference was made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Court for adjudication of the dispute. The Industrial Court on appreciation of the evidence brought on record gave the following find...

Shri Ramesh @ Waghari Ramesh and ors. Vs. Shri Satish Sahney, Commissi ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1997(1)BomCR52; 1997BomCR(Cri)95

R.G. Vaidyanatha, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the detention of the petitioner under the National Security Act, 1980. Rule was issued. Respondents have filed their returns.2. The petitioner came to be detained by a detention order dated 18th May, 1995 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, under the provisions of section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention were furnished to the petitioner. He had made a representation to the Central Government against the order of detention. The Central Government rejected the representation. Hence the petitioner has filed this petition challenging his detention on many grounds.3. The grounds of detention show that the petitioner has been ordered to be detained under the Act in question because of his prejudicial and terrorist activities as detailed in the grounds of detention. It is alleged in the grounds of detention that the petitioner and his henchmen ...

Super Leasing Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. (Also Ass ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)56TTJ(Mumbai)258

ORDERM. V. R. PRASAD, A. M. :These are cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue and are directed against the consolidated order of the CIT(A), dt. 10th Oct., 1989. As common points are involved, the appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the appeals of the assessee. The first common ground for all the years is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the compensation received from leasing out the premises should be assessed as income from house property and not as business income as claimed by the assessee.3. The CIT(A) has indicated the facts relating to this issue succinctly and paras 2 and 2.1 of his order read as follows :'2. The assessee is a company incorporated on 9th April, 1984. The main objects of the assessee-company was to carry on the business of leasing, hiring, selling, letting, hire purchase and hire purchase financing of all types of plant and machineries, industrial and office equipm...

Bapu Subboo Chavan Vs. National Textile Corporation (S.M.) Ltd.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR128; [1996(73)FLR1598]; (1998)IIILLJ820Bom

Majithia, J.1. Challenge has been made to order dated September 11/14, 1992 passed in Appeal No. 1 of 1989 by Court of Small Causes at Bombay, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was in the employment of Respondent No. 2. He filed an application under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, for short 'the Act', for payment of wages from March 1, 1978 to September 27, 1980 before the authority appointed under the Act. The first respondent was also made a party to the said application. The authority appointed under the Act allowed the application and directed the respondents to make the payment. 3. Aggrieved against this order, the first respondent filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The appellate Court after examining the case came to the conclusion that the order of the authority appointed under the Act in so far as it has foisted the liability on the first respondent...

Satish Mangharam Tanwani Vs. Freight Handler and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1996)98BOMLR562

G.D. Kamat, J.1. This appeal is directed against nil award dated 31.8.1989 in M.A.C. No. 260 of 1985 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane. The appellant had instituted a claim petition against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, owner of truck bearing No. MRL 4837 and insurer respectively claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for having suffered an accident and consequent permanent partial disability which had taken place on' 12.2.1985. It was averred in the claim petition that appellant (original claimant) was then 26 years of age and he was working as Sub-Engineer with C1DCO. That on 12.2.1985 he was proceeding from Mankhurd to Vashi and at about 9 a.m. when he had crossed about 40 metres on Thane Creek Bridge, truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and driven by one Govind Vithoba Karande (opponent witness No. 1) which was passing by his left side came to his side, as a result of which the appellant was thrown down from his scooter on the divider of the road. As a result of the accid...