|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2969 Records
-
1993 (12) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADHYA PRADESH
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... self that these applications are decided without any further loss of time and we expect that the Collector (Appeals) shall dispose them of within a month from today. We are constrained to observe that such complaints are, these days, frequently being brought before the High Court that the Appellate Authority does not decide the application for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount due under the impugned order and/or application for stay or recovery under the impugned order and the Excise Department proceeds to recover the amount. Such an action or inaction cannot be justified. It is expected of a fair administration that when it is seized of the matter regarding stay of recovery, it would not proceed to recover the amount even before the application for stay is disposed of by it. We hope steps will be taken at the Departmental level itself to save the inconvenience and harassment to the appellants. 6.With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
-
1993 (12) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Modvat Credit when original Gate Pass/Invoice lost - Documents ... ... ... ... ..... ents as provided under the Rules dealing with credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs, like invoice, extracts of Part I and Part II of Form RG 23A etc. and if the Competent Authority is satisfied about their genuineness then credit will be allowed. Mr. Desai further submitted that by the impugned Circular the only clarification that is issued is that credit will not be allowed on Certified Copy or Authenticated photo copy of the original Gate Pass and in the circumstances the impugned Circular was valid. 7.We find considerable merit in the said contention. As stated above by the impugned Circular it is clarified that the credit will not be allowed on the Certified Copy or Authnticated photo copy of the original Gate Pass.The said Circular does not disentitle the claimant from proving that duty has been paid on excisable goods used as inputs under the Rules. 8.In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is rejected.
-
1993 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... n performed by the Supdt., Central Excise and unless the directions issued by this Court earlier, are complied with, in our opinion, the conclusion drawn by the Supdt., Central Excise that no rebate is due to the petitioner for the aforesaid period, would not be in accordance with law. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 17-1-1992 filed as Annexure 9 to the Writ Petition is quashed. We direct the Supdt., Central Excise, Range Roorkee (U.P.), respondent No. 2, to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the directions of this Court dated 4th February, 1991 and in the light of the observations made above. 6. Since the matter is pending since 1992, it would be desirable that respondent No. 2 is directed to decide the case within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Financial position ... ... ... ... ..... reveals that the net profit for the said financial year as per profit and loss account was Rs. 6,250.44 Paise. The profit and loss account of the subsequent year namely financial year ending 31-3-1993 has also been filed with the supplementary affidavit, according to which the assessee had suffered net loss of Rs. 1,54,196.41 Paise. It is mainfest from the above that the Tribunal was wrong when it observed that the petitioner had made a profit of Rs. 6 lacs in the financial year ending 31-3-1992 and, was thus not entitled to any relief at its hand. We cannot say that if the Tribunal had taken into account the correct figure of profit what ultimate order would have been passed. In the circumstances, we consider it expedient and in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal with the direction to re-consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law and in the light of observations made above. 5.In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Credit of duty - Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... to adjust the equities, rights and liabilities in connection with payment of excise duty on the cleared final finished product Vanaspathi in the light of the aforesaid directions. It will be open to the Department to take appropriate steps for recovering the Duty payable on the cleared consignments of Vanaspathi pending these proceedings to the extent of the Duty which exceeds Rs. 1000/- per MT. of the cleared consignment. As and when such proceedings are initiated after hearing the respondents appropriate orders can be passed in the light of the present order, and if any recoveries are effected corresponding credit entries will have to be made in the accumulated credit accounts which may enure for the respondents in the light of the concerned notification holding the field. 28.The writ appeal will stand accordingly allowed in part to the aforesaid extent and the writ petition will also stand allowed in part as aforesaid. 29.There will be no order as to costs all throughout.
-
1993 (12) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Service of Show Cause Notice - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... Madras address when the appellant was not residing there. Therefore, there is no proper service of the show cause notice and consequently the appellant was not given opportunity to put forth his defence and that the appellant was also not heard by the first respondent. This follows that the order of the first respondent, dated 10-4-1990 imposing a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the FERA and Rs. 2,50,000/- under Section 9(1)(d) of the FERA cannot be sustained. The order of confiscation made by the first respondent pursuant to his order cannot be upheld. The order of the appellate authority, namely, the second respondent confirming the order of the first respondent has also to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appellant is entitled to get refund of the penalty amount paid by him and also the confiscated sum of Rs. 22,850/-. 9.In the result, the appeal is allowed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction and appellate remedies ... ... ... ... ..... efore the Collector, Central Excise and Customs who adjudicated the same. Therefore, after the final adjudication of the matter by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs the petitioner cannot fall back on the show cause notice for seeking admission of this petition before this court. The only course which is left open to the petitioners is to approach the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to hear the appeal and as such an efficacious alternate remedy being available to the petitioner the question of entertaining this petition does not arise as the petition is not for challenging the initial notice, but the final adjudication which has been made on merits. We have also been told that an appeal has already been filed. Therefore, also there is no question of running two parallel proceedings against the same order. 4. In view of the aforesaid this petition is dismissed summarily in view of the fact that the petitioners have already availed the alternate remedy available to them.
-
1993 (12) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... the nature of the goods, he would not have allowed them to be kept in his house. Therefore, the case of the accused that he was not aware of the contents of the gunny bags cannot be accepted. Hence, it is clear that he was aware that foreign goods had been brought to his house. As pointed out by the Court below, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that there was any permit in respect of the said foreign goods, or any duty had been paid for them. The accused should have known that they are liable for confiscation. In these circumstances under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, even keeping any foreign goods by any person which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation shall be punishable. Therefore, rightly the trial Court has convicted and sentenced him and the Appellate Court has confirmed the same. I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the said conviction and sentence. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.
-
1993 (12) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Project Import ... ... ... ... ..... ruction put by the other departments of the Government of India . Learned counsel for the respondents sought to distinguish the said decision by stating that, in that case the CCI and E had sought for a certificate from the Director General whereas in this case the items are being imported under Open General Licence. This distinction does not take away the ratio of the judgment namely, that certificate of verification by the third respondent has to be given due weight and cannot be brushed aside lightly. May be, the certificate is not the last word on the subject, but it has to be given due weight. 6. For all the above reasons I hold that the import of the small quantity of graphic art films under the disputed bill of entry for the subject goods valued at Rs. 1,02,612.40 only should be given benefit as part of the Project Import and entitled to the relief and concession sought for. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Investigation and Inquiry - Jurisdiction - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... ended that it was located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent and the allegation made against the petitioner can be investigated and adjudicated upon only at Bombay. 9. I have already examined the scope of the jurisdiction of the second respondent. When the cause of action for the investigation and adjudication arose in Bangalore, it cannot be said that Bush India can escape the adjudicatory process against it by the second respondent. It is alleged against Bush India that it has connived and abetted with the Manufacturing Company to evolve a device to reduce the tax liability of the Manufacturing Company. Therefore, notice under Rule 209A was issued as to why penalty should not be imposed on Bush India Limited and two others. The subject matter and the cause of action fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the second respondent. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions, they are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
1993 (12) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ble to show any provision be it, statutory or contractual which would enable them to refuse the payment in respect of the tender of genuine exim scrips. Consequently, all the writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. I make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take whatever steps, which are available to them, to recover the amounts paid to the petitioners in respect of the exim scrips which were issued to M/s. Aisha Exports Private Limited, Trimex Agencies (Private) Limited or Trimex Minerals (Private) Limited. In respect of some of the claims made in the writ petitions, it is stated that payments have been made. Therefore, the present judgment will govern only those claims under genuine exim scrips which have not already been satisfied by the respondents. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms. There will however, be no order as to costs. All the interim orders are vacated. The 3rd respondent shall give effect to this order within four weeks from today.
-
1993 (12) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... y a mistake for 1986. This cannot seriously be disputed because the show cause notice itself is for the year 1985-86. In fact, the first respondent has not considered the point whether on the facts of the case Section 11A of the Act could have been invoked at all. 3. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has also sought for a reference to the High Court on certain points of law and that application is said to be pending on the file of this Court before a Division Bench. It is open to the parties to agitate that question separately. That would not prevent me from holding that the order of the Tribunal is defective to the limited extent that they have not considered the question of limitation as pointed above. On this short ground the order dated 29-3-1988 made in No. 176/1988 is set aside and the matter remitted back to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. There will however, be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ng for the petitioner is that it was open to the respondents to approach BIFR and seek their consent for recovering the excise duty at the time of removal of the goods. On the other hand the counsel for the Revenue argues that it is for the petitioner to approach the Board and get a clarification. I am not deciding this question because I have already held that Section 22 of the Act will not come to the aid of the petitioner. Central Excise Authorities seek to recover the duty at the time of removal of the manufactured goods. In this connection the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in relation to the sales tax arrears collected from the purchasers, by the Government seems to be apposite. Section 11-D of the Central Excise Act, also is to the same effect. 8. For all the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the petitioner-company has made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunction. Consequently, W.M.P. is dismissed. The interim order granted on 11-11-1993 is vacated.
-
1993 (12) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Petition by Public Sector Undertaking - Existence of alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... lves, to ensure that no litigation come to court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee, and its clearance for litigation. Government may include a representative of the Ministry concerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of Finance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be nominated so that the Committee would function with status, control and discipline. It shall be the obligation of every court and every Tribunal where such a dispute is raised hereafter to demand a clearance from the committee in case it has not been so pleaded and in the absence of the clearance, the proceedings would not be proceeded with. 3. Following the above ruling of the Supreme Court, instead of disposing of the case on merits, the parties are directed to refer the matter to arbitration and settle the disputes in the light of the direction given by the Supreme Court (extracted above). The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Manufacture - Writ jurisdiction - Reasonable classification - Judicial review ... ... ... ... ..... se and must be quashed. 31. The petitioners have also argued that the impugned notification was arbitrary because no reason at all had been given as to why the 1st day of October, 1987 had been taken as cut off date in the impugned notification. In view of the finding reached by me on the main issue raised, it is not necessary to decide this question. 32. The writ application is therefore allowed and the rule nisi made absolute. The interim order which had been issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the impugned notification had been granted subject to the petitioner depositing an amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the duty demanded and furnishing a bank guarantee for the balance 50 per cent. The respondents will return the duty paid by the petitioners and the bank guarantee if any duly discharged to the petitioners within a week from service of the operative portion of this judgment on them. 33. In the facts of this case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
SSI exemption - Brand name - Excise duty - Classes of goods - Delegated legislation ... ... ... ... ..... of the receipt of this order and the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal without reference to the bar of limitation. Re. W.P. No. 3805/89 11. In this writ petition also, there is an order of adjudication dated 29-11-1988 made by the first respondent. The order is appealable. Question raised pertains to the interpretation of the Notification and the relevant Explanations. 11.1 In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to file an appropriate appeal before the statutory appellate authority within sixty days of the receipt of this order the appeal shall be entertained without reference to the bar of limitation. 12. In W.P. No. 633/1989, petitioner approached this court at the stage of show cause notice. It is open to the petitioner to show cause in answer to the said notice dated 27-9-1988 cause may be shown within sixty days of the receipt of this order. 13. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed, subject to the liberties given above. Rule discharged.
-
1993 (12) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Waste - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... ioners imported goods is not 2875, then no amount of certificates produced by the respondents will support their contention. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the Respondents that the imported goods fall under Item 18IV of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1983-84. If this be so, the respondents cannot levy duty in terms of Item 18IV. 6. In the result, petition partly succeeds and it is declared that the petitioners are liable to pay duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1983-84. Respondents are entitled to enforce the bank guarantee, which we are told, is alive as on today, and recover duty payable along with 12 interest as per the interim order. If the petitioners pay the amount directly to the Department, then the bank guarantee will automatically stand discharged. The duty is payable under Tariff Item 68. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Special Deduction, Technical Services, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ose of income-tax, a principle of apportionment has always been applied in different contexts. Bearing the above principles in mind, if we appreciate the facts of this case, one thing is certain, i.e., at least some of the technical services agreed to be rendered by the petitioner-company for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs will not come within the scope of technical know-how/services . Bill his contention is that, the respondent has arbitrarily granted approval only for 50 per cent. without giving any reasons. As pointed out earlier, the impugned order (on review petition) must be read along with the main order. If so done, it can be seen that the Board has applied its mind before fixing 50 per cent. for approval, which cannot be lightly interfered with by this court, vide the decision in Simon Carves India Ltd. v. CBDT 1979 120 ITR 172 (Delhi). In this view of the matter, I do not think there is any case for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1993 (12) TMI 54 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Equity, Jurisdiction, Legal Fiction, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... s of that state of affairs. Section 219 has bidden to treat the advance tax as the actual payment of tax on the date of assessment. This mandate is not confined to any particular purpose if at all the purpose is to adjust the advance payment towards the quantified liability on the date of assessment. Advance payment automatically becomes the current payment. If so, as a consequence of this status conferred on the payment, giving credit to it, the excess shall have to be refunded in the same manner as any other excess payment referred to in section 244(1A) is refunded. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made by the Delhi High Court in this regard. Consequently, it is not possible for me to sustain the order of the Commissioner even under section 244(1A). In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The order of the respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to make a fresh order in the light of the observations made in this order. Rule made absolute.
-
1993 (12) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Equitable Assignment, Garnishee Order ... ... ... ... ..... 3. The fourth respondent was, therefore, not entitled to get those amounts. He is liable to pay over the same to the petitioner. Since the fourth respondent had retained with him the amount to which he is not legally entitled, interest on the amount is payable. We deem it proper to direct the fourth respondent to pay interest on the amount at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum from the date of the filing of the original petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the original petition is allowed and exhibits, P-5 and P-6 notices, issued by the fourth respondent on November 22, 1975, and November 12, 1975, are quashed. We direct respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to refrain from collecting amounts due from respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to the first respondent. The fourth respondent is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 62,358 with interest at 15 per cent. from June 29, 1983, the date of presentation of this petition till the date of payment. We direct the parties to suffer their costs.
............
|
