|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 278 Records
-
1987 (4) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Employees’ Securities to be deposited in Post office Saving Banks or scheduled Bank ... ... ... ... ..... or documentary evidence to show that the security amounts were not deposited as per the provisions of section 417 of the Companies Act or the accused persons wilfully or intentionally converted the amount for their own use. This evidence is missing. Rather the report of the chartered accountant is that the company has complied with the provisions of Companies Act with regard to the deposits accepted from the public. The findings of the auditors of the company are a complete answer to the contention of the petitioner. The conclusion of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is in consonance with the legal proposition and the evidence on record. He has looked into the problem from all angles. His finding is quite in conformity with the oral as well as documentary evidence led and proved on record by the complainant. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse, calling for interference. In the result I see no force in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 398 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the impugned order of detention was based on no material inasmuch as R.C. Singh was not a gazetted officer of enforcement and, therefore, the statements recorded by him had no evidentiary value whether the statements recorded by him could be treated to be statements relatable to section 39(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and could still from the basis for such satisfaction?
Whether there was non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and, therefore, the impugned order of detention was bad as there were factual mis-statements detailed in items A to F of the gorunds of detention?
Whether there was infraction of the constitutional safeguards contained in article 22(5) due to the failure on the part of the Central Government to consider the representation filed by the detenu under section 8(b) read with section 11 of the Act, alleged to have been presented through one Ashok Jain and received at the President’s Secretariat on April 15, 1986, and, therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner was rendered invalid and unconstitutional?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed.this is a fit case in which the detenu, his wife (petitioner herein), Ashok Jain and all other persons responsible for the fabrication of false evidence should be prosecuted for the offences committed by them. Nevertheless we wish to defer the passing of final orders on the application made under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Proceedure, 1973, by the Union of India at this stage because of the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation is said to be engaged in making a thorough investigation of the matter so that suitable action could be taken against all the perpetrators of the fraudulent acts and the offences. As such, the launching of any prosecution against the detenu and his set of people at this stage forthwith may lead to a premature closure of the investigation resulting in the Central Bureau of Investigation being unable to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy.
-
1987 (4) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... th the companies are carrying on the same business. He also relies upon the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., In re 1975 45 Comp. Cas. 355 (Bom.) in support of his contention that it need not necessarily be the main business of the company and Mr. Mehta submits that since all the three requirements as laid down under section 23(3) are fulfilled, the exemption under section 23(3) is available to the companies and they need not apply under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. In my view, Mr. Mehta is right and the argument of the Regional Director cannot be accepted. The exemption under section 23(3) is available to these companies. Under the circumstances, Petition No. 405 of 1986 is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) to (h). Petition No. 406 of 1986 is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) to (g). Costs of the Regional Director fixed at Rs. 300 in each petition and also of the official liquidator at Rs. 300 in each petition to be paid by the petitioners.
-
1987 (4) TMI 396 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... service only the one that while fixing the exchange ratio of the shares, several factors have not been taken into consideration. The exchange ratio was got fixed by Messrs Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi, an international firm of chartered accountants. The Regional Director has not stated in the objection petition that the ratio fixed is unfair in any manner. The exchange ratio was approved unanimously by more than 3/4ths of the shareholders present in the meeting. The shortcomings pointed out have also been explained satisfactorily in the reply filed. As the exchange ratio of the shares proposed is not stated to be unfair to the shareholders, it is not necessary to deal with the shortcomings pointed out in the objection petition in detail. I am, therefore, satisfied that the scheme of amalgamation is not prejudicial and detrimental to the interests of the public or the shareholders. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the requisite sanction accorded.
-
1987 (4) TMI 395 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Incorporation of company ... ... ... ... ..... tion 276B of the Income-tax Act. This does not mean that this section will be rendered nugatory because as stated above and as pointed out by the learned judges of the Allahabad and the Madras High Courts, the principal officer may be prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 276B of the Act. It may also be noted in this connection that in Laxmi Ratan Cotton Mills case 1975 Cri LJ 1881 (All.), to which reference has been made by the learned Magistrate, his Lordship had observed that since in the case before him, the company was not impleaded through its principal officer, the complainant could not proceed against the company. In the instant case also, the company was not impleaded through its principal officer and, therefore, the Allahabad decision does not come to the aid of the prosecution. For the reasons stated above, it is held that the instant prosecutions against the petitioner are incompetent and are accordingly quashed. Both the rules are thus made absolute.
-
1987 (4) TMI 371 - SUPREME COURT
Transfer application for suits pending in the High Court of Bombay to the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad - Held that:- It is true that the secured creditors are outside the winding-up proceedings but when the question is one of rehabilitating the company, it is desirable that the company court should have a full and complete picture of the state of affairs of the company and there should be no conflicting orders from different courts in different suits. It is in that view that, in the particular circumstances of this case, we think it is best that the suits now pending in the High Court of Bombay should be transferred to the Gujarat High Court where the proceedings under the Companies Act are pending.
-
1987 (4) TMI 370 - SUPREME COURT
Arrears of salaries and wages due to the workers from May, 1984, onwards - Held that:- We direct that stocks which are lying with the industry valued at Rs. 91,77,000 shall immediately be disposed of and out of this, the wages and other dues of the workers for the period from May, 1984, till 8th July, 1984, shall be met. The balance, if any, will be utilised for meeting other pressing demands in the discretion of the official liquidator subject to orders of the Court. We are sure that the official liquidator will ensure that the disposal fetches the best of rates. We may also make it clear that issuance of the notification by the Bihar State Government will not come in the way of sale of these assets and payment to the workers. We direct that this shall be completed within two months from today. The case may come for further directions in third week of July.
-
1987 (4) TMI 369 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Offences by companies ... ... ... ... ..... ing of section 23C(2). A similar view was taken by the Delhi High Court in Ram Kishan Rohtagi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1980 1 FAC 419, while interpreting section 17(1) of the prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which section is concededly in pari materia with the present section 68, referred to above and this opinion of the High Court has specifically been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67. It is thus patent that in the light of the allegation contained in paragraph No. 9 of the complaint, the petitioner cannot possibly be accused of the commission of any offence. It appears that the trial court, while passing the impugned order of summoning, failed to take notice of this aspect of the matter. For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and quash the impugned complaint (annexure P-l) and the summoning order (annexure P-4) to the extent they relate to the directors of the company.
-
1987 (4) TMI 349 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Chapter X ... ... ... ... ..... But the danger of double receipt of duty is real, because if the buyer-factory is in another collectorate, the Assistant Collectors at the despatching end and at the receiving end may not know of the process that may be initiated by either of them for recovery of duty. However that may be, the law is clear - if a factory/applicant is allowed to obtain goods on concession under Notifications 74/79-C.E., 75/79-C.E. and 167/79-C.E., the responsibility for the duty of the goods so cleared under concession is transferred from the manufacturing factory to the applicant-buyer-factory and this is a very wise provision. The seller would have no control over the disposal of the goods he sells, and this would place him in jeopardy against which one can see little or no remedy or redress. 6. The demand served on M/s. Madras Radiators is not only unjust but also not in keeping with the law in Chapter X. The department rsquo s proceedings seeking to recover the duty from them is set aside.
-
1987 (4) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... nt case the snap fasteners could certainly not be marketed until affixed to printed boards and the needles could not be marketed loose but will have to be packed in boxes before being marketed. Hence so far as the printed boards and boxes in which the needles are packed they would be input goods as defined in Notification 201/79. But the same may not be the case in respect of cartons or boxes in which the printed boards or the needle boxes are subsequently packed, since these would be required only for the purpose of ease of transport. 8. Accordingly we hold that the appellants should be entitled to relief under Notification 201/79 till 28-2-1982 in respect of the printed boards (in which the snap fasteners are fixed) and the boxes (in which the needles are initially packed) but not in respect of boxes or cartons in which these are subsequently packed. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the said extent and the orders of the lower authorities are modified in the said manner.
-
1987 (4) TMI 347 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... classification of the goods under Heading 84.40 as ordered earlier by the Tribunal. 3. Shri J. Gopinath, the Ld. SDR, submitted that he reiterates the arguments he had advanced in the earlier three appeals to the effect that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.10 of CTA. Apart from this he had nothing more to say except that the Government have filed an appeal against the judgment in the case of CC, Bombay v. Bharat Vijay Mills (supra) 1986 (24) E.L.T. 662 . 4. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. We have perused the earlier orders of the Tribunal and find no reason to differ from them. We note that Shri Gopinath reiterates his arguments in the present appeal also. We reject the argument for the same reason as mentioned in the orders cited. 5. As a result we order that step and repeat machine imported by the appellant be classified under Heading 84.40 CTA. The impugned orders are modified to this extent and the appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1987 (4) TMI 346 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Air conditioners exempt from duty ... ... ... ... ..... vity is carried on within the factory premises and there is no finding that the fuel injection pump test room is an isolated premises which had nothing to do with the Engine Assembly Section. 5. The Appellate Collector has rejected the contentions of the Appellants on-the basis that only testing was done and that no research or manufacture was carried on. This finding cannot be justified in view of the write up furnished by the Appellants, which throws considerable light on the activities where the air-conditioners have been installed. The Appellants have rightly urged that the activity included any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the finished product and that their recalibration/re-setting was an incidental activity in the manufacture of the engine, which was carried on within the factory. 6. In the circumstances, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification 56 of 1978. The impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 342 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... and have gone through the records placed before us. Rule 232-B of the Central Excise Rules in which the procedure of payment of duty under protest has been prescribed, was effective from 11-5-1981. The period of claim and also the date of filing the refund claim in this case are prior to the date of introduction of Rule 232-B of the Central Excise Rules. During the relevant period there was no prescribed procedure for payment of duty under protest. From the impugned order it appears to us that the gate passes contained the protest made by the appellants, but the reason for paying the duty under protest is not mentioned thereon. In view of the fact that Rule 232-B was not in effect during the relevant time, the protest made on the gate passes is to be accepted was valid for the purpose ef Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules in this case. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order with the direction to pay the differential duty for the period under dispute.
-
1987 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... be controverted by the Revenue rsquo s representative Therefore, the imported crushed scrap could not be termed as flakes rdquo . 13. In view of the over-whelming Case Law on behalf of the importers, we have to hold that the imported scrap is not artificial or synthetic resin. Therefore, it is not classifiable under Sub-item 1 of 15A. Once it is not so classified, it is not liable to duty under explanation III of the item. In this view we do not go into the question about the validity of the Collector (Appeals) making use of CCCN (Notes). We hold that the imported goods do not fall under Sub-item (1) of item 15A-CET but under item 68 thereof. 14. As result, we dismiss the appeals No 1780/85-C 1781/85-CwithC/Cross/621/85-C C/1779/85-C with CO/634/85-C C/1778/85-C and C/Cross/613/85-C 1414/85-C with CO/502/85-C 1418/85-C with CO/539/85-C and C/1777/85-C with C/Cross/323/86C and allow the appeals No C/473/85-C to 477/85-C C/1894/86-C and C/2130/85-C with A.No. 2595 to 2598/86-C.
-
1987 (4) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... ear the goods manufactured by NETC but without bringing the same into the account of clearances of NETC, is not correct. It is on the basis of this conclusion that these appeals have to be disposed of. 10. We had already seen that the Central Board had held that so far as the demand for duty is concerned the same will have to be restricted to the normal period of 6 months prior to the date of show cause notice since the demands related to the clearances for the financial year 1979-80 but the show cause notice issued more than 6 months after 1-4-1980. The result was that so far as the demand for duty is concerned it has been entirely set aside by the order of the Central Board itself. Therefore, in the present appeals we are concerned with the question of the liability for penalty only. For the reasons stated earlier we hold that no penalty could be imposed on either of the appellants. These appeals are accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authorities are set aside.
-
1987 (4) TMI 339 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... ng the date of show cause notice dated 11-9-1979 and not for the entire period (since the levy of Central Excise duty on bolts, nuts and screws) as has been alleged in the show cause notice and consequently appears to have been held by the Collector. 9. However, I agree with the final conclusion in the order proposed by brother Kalyanam as regards the dismissal of the present appeal. Since Counsel Shri Bedi did not press the question of classification of the goods in view of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in 1986 (23) E.L.T.137 (supra) and the Collector refrained from passing any order on the duty demand leaving it to be decided by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Ludhiana, in the proceedings pending before him, the present appeal has to be dismissed. I agree with this conclusion subject to the modification set out in the preceding paragraph. Dated 2-4-1987 Sd/- (G. Sankaran) Vice-President I agree with the conclusions reached by the learned V.P. Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Member (T)
-
1987 (4) TMI 330 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ould not furnish the input-output statement in terms of Notification No. 295/77 due to practical difficulties substantive benefit under Notification No. 178/77 cannot be denied to the appellant firm if the other substantive conditions, namely that the inputs are duty paid and that they were duly utilised in the manufacture of dutiable finished product, namely grinding wheels have been fulfilled. This has been held so in a series of judgments of the Tribunal, one of the recent ones being in the case of Sundram Fasteners Ltd. v. CCE Madras 1987 E.L.T. 275 . 5. ensp In view of our foregoing discussion, we allow that the credit of duty paid on inputs received in the appellants rsquo factory from 11-7-1977 and utilised in the manufacture of dutiable finished product, namely grinding wheels be credited in their R.G. 23 account and they should be permitted to utilise the same for payment of duty on future clearances of grinding wheels. 6. ensp Appeals disposed of in the above terms.
-
1987 (4) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Electricity ... ... ... ... ..... strict itself to Hydro Thermal etc. generating stations which produce electricity for public distribution and consumption. The definition takes within its purview ldquo any station for generating electricity rdquo . We do not see the basis for the appellant-Collector rsquo s contention .that the generating station attached to a factory cannot be considered to a ldquo generating station rdquo for the purpose of Notification No. 105/78. We reject this contention and, in consequence, the Collector rsquo s appeal. 5. ensp Turning to the cross-objection filed by the respondents, we note that the appellants are manufactures of tea. We are, therefore, of the view that the Collector (Appeals) has correctly held that electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping of water was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 52/78 which conferred duty exemption on electricity used inter alia in an industrial unit. In this view the cross-objection has no merit and is also dismissed.
-
1987 (4) TMI 324 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... rding the demand for duty and the imposition of penalty, has to be necessarily set aside. We find that two separate appeals have been preferred by the appellants, though both appeals are with reference to the same order (i.e.) No. Order-in-Original 16/85 (Steel furniture) dated 25-9-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur and the relief prayed for in both appeals is the same (i.e.) to set aside the said order and the demand for payment of duty as well as imposition of penalty thereunder. We are unable to understand why two separate appeals for the same relief and against the same order should have been preferred by the appellants. Our order above would dispose of Appeal No. E-246/86-D. Since the relief prayed for in the other Appeal (E/247/86-D) is the same as has been granted in allowing Appeal No. E/246/86-D, we therefore dismiss the Excise Appeal No. 247/86-D as having become in-fructuous in view of the order passed in Excise Appeal No. 246/86-D.
-
1987 (4) TMI 323 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Handloom Cess ... ... ... ... ..... h appeals by Shri Vineet Kumar. 5. emsp This Tribunal had held in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Kothari (Madras) Ltd. (Excise Appeal No. 1432 of81-D) under Order No. 215/1987-D dated 4-3-1987 that no handloom cess was payable on the cotton chindies also and that the exemption was not restricted to chindies of man-made fibres only. The ratio of the said decision applies to the period in issue in the present two appeals also. In view of the said decision Shri Vineet Kumar had nothing further to add except to reiterate submissions made for the department in the earlier appeal also. Shri Vijaya Raghavan relied on the said earlier decision. 6. emsp Following the said earlier decision cited above we held that in the present cases also no handloom cess was payable by either of the respondents. Accordingly we uphold the orders of the Appellate Collector in both matters and dismiss these appeals. Notice dated 30-12-1981 mentioned earlier is accordingly discharged.
........
|
