|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 7228 Records
-
2004 (12) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT
What are the remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex-parte decree being passed against him in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) and the extent and limitation thereof ?
-
2004 (12) TMI 675 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... used by the Commissioner for imposing penalty in respect of the duty demanded under these 12 show cause notices. (d) There has been no mens rea by either the company or Mr. N. J. Danani and Mr. Herman Pinto. None of them were aware that any goods were liable for confiscation. The penalties on them are therefore ex facie perverse. (e) The Commissioner has also increased the penalties as compared to the previous Commissioner whose order was set-aside without any justification. This is also unsustainable in law. (f) Penalty are therefore not called for and are to be set aside. 4.1 In view of the findings arrived, it is to be held - (i) The benefit of exemptions is available under notification to both the products as arrived at herein above. (ii) The duty demands are not upheld and are to be set aside. (iii) Penalties are not called for and are to be set aside. 5.1 The order is to be set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief. 6.1 Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (12) TMI 674 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s for the respondents. 5. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 9961 has held that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded as an information for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147(b) of the Act and in the present case the audit report for excessive deduction under section 35B of the Act is an information on point of law and, therefore, the Income-tax Officer could not initiate reassessment proceedings under section 147(b) of the Act as the same did not constitute information. 6. In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelling the re-assessment under section 147(b) of the Act. Consequently, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (12) TMI 673 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Bharati (supra). Furthermore, undisputedly, the demands raised by the Department, in these cases, are far beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. A similar view was taken in the case of Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara cited by Id. Consultants. 3. Following the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order vacating demands of service tax on 'goods transport service' received by the respondents during the aforesaid period, and reject these appeals. It appears from the impugned order that, in respect of M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd., Madurai (Respondents in Appeal No. 80/2004) and M/s. Kothari Phytochemicals International Ltd. (respondents in Appeal No. 81/2004), the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected refund claims for service tax already paid for the aforesaid period. But this part of the impugned cannot be disturbed as it has not been challenged by the assessees. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court).
-
2004 (12) TMI 672 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he liberty of a person. No doubt that drug trafficking is a serious matter but the investigations into such offences also have to be serious and not perfunctory. 9. There is no violation of Section 55 of the Act for the reason that PW-12 N.S. Ahlawat was an authorized Officer under Section 53 of the Act and as such, competent to keep the seized articles in his possession. This, however, did not absolve the prosecution of its duty to establish that so long the seized articles remained with him, neither he nor anybody else tampered with articles and samples reached the Chemical Examiner in the same condition in which they were at the time of sealing. 10. In the result, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving it case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal, therefore, is allowed. The impugned conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is ordered to be released , if not required in any other case.
-
2004 (12) TMI 671 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT
Whether order of detention passed by the appellant No. 2 under Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOSA') directing detention of Rajen Ghosal(hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') correctly quashed by HC?
-
2004 (12) TMI 669 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... civil appeals are dismissed. C.A. Nos. 6795-6797/2004 Taken on board. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the tenant had failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend as she had failed to raise any triable issue?
Whether application for the eviction of the appellant on the ground that she required the premises for her bona fide personal need invoking the provisions of Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which, according to her, entitled her to immediate possession of the premises in question being a widow landlady valid?
-
2004 (12) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT
Whether even though there was no specific provision in Section 52 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short the "Act") as amended by Bihar Act 9 of 1990 (hereafter referred to as the 'Bihar Act'), a vehicle seized for alleged involvement in commission of forest offence can be released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation?
-
2004 (12) TMI 666 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hra Petrochemical 1997 (90) E.L.T. 275 (S.C.) is made out by the department. It is not the case of the department that either the appellants or Outokumpu supplied the engineering work necessary for the production of the capital goods imported, from various vendors including the goods imported from Outokumpu. On the other hand, the equipment supply contract entered with Outokumpu clearly states that the price of the proprietary equipments include the design cost also. Hence, on facts, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Petrochemicals is not applicable to the present case. 7. In this view of the findings, we find no reasons to uphold the order of the ld. Commissioner. 8. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to be set aside & the appeal allowed by ordering that the Licence fee, & Basic Engineering fees as proposed cannot be added to the value under the Customs Act, 1962 to charge duty on the inputs received. 9. Ordered accordingly.
-
2004 (12) TMI 665 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent was correctly discharged from the criminal case filed against him by HC?
Whether the High Court exercised the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Court after a long lapse of time?
-
2004 (12) TMI 664 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns stating that this court can permit the petitioners to opt for regular assessment under section 5B and I have taken that factor as one of the factors to come to the conclusion that the impugned provision in no way results in arbitrariness or violation of the right guaranteed to the petitioners either under article 14 or under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution it is necessary to reserve liberty to the petitioners to opt for regular assessment under section 5B of the Act notwithstanding the fact that they had opted for composition under section 17(6) of the Act. . . . Therefore, in the light of the discussions made above, the order passed by the learned single judge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated October 20, 2000 (B. V. Subba Reddy v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bijapur 2002 125 STC 287 (Karn) 2001 50 Kar LJ 164), passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 27459 of 2000, is set aside. However, no order is made as to cost.
-
2004 (12) TMI 663 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of form XXXIV, if the Revenue wants to rely upon the entries of panji 3 and wants to take action on the basis of the entries of panji 3 a very heavy burden lies upon the Revenue to establish that these entries relate to the person concerned by other corroborative evidence. In the present case, such burden has not been discharged. In my view, section 28B of the Act only raises presumption of sale of goods inside the State, by the driver or the person-in-charge in case of non-surrender of form XXXIV. Therefore, it is not safe to presume the sale inside the State on the basis of the entry of panji 3 which has not been signed or acknowledged by the driver or the person-in-charge for creating the liability of tax in absence of specific evidence of sale. For the reasons stated above, order of the Tribunal and the authorities below are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal and the authorities below are set aside.
-
2004 (12) TMI 662 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sel for the appellant are applicable to the facts of the present case. Viewed from any angle, the benefit under the above said notification are not at all applicable to the appellant herein. The revisional authority was right in holding that the appellant was not eligible for the incentives or benefits arising under the Notification No. FD 101 CSI 87(I) dated June 7, 1989. Therefore, revisional authority was right in holding that the order of the appellate authority was erroneous in so far as the same was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and the revisional authority has rightly interfered with the order of the appellate authority under section 22A(1) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the appeal of the appellant/assessee deserves to be rejected. In view of the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated March 30, 1998 passed by the revisional authority in ADDL.CCT.DVG.Z.SMR. AP/16/97-98. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 661 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the department enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in a criminal case?
Held that:- In cases involving Section 13 (1)(e) of the P.C. Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that the assets found were not disproportionate to the known sources of income. The expression 'known sources of income' is related to the sources known to the authorities and not the accused.
Therefore, there is no question of any disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. In the criminal case, the accused has to prove the source of acquisition. He has to satisfactorily account for the same. Additionally, issues covered by charges 2 and 3 cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in the criminal case. That being the position, the High Court was not justified in directing stay of the departmental proceedings pending conclusion of the criminal charge. Where there is delay in the disposal of a criminal case the departmental proceedings can be proceeded with so that the conclusion can be arrived at an early date. If ultimately the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty the employer may get rid of him at the earliest. Appeal allowed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 660 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court in ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. v. State of A. P. 2002 126 STC 541. In the considered opinion of this court in all those three cases, the question for consideration was about the taxability of coal ash as a separate merchandise and in none of those cases the question of rate of tax was involved. In the context and background of the facts of the cases in the aforesaid three decisions, the courts have held that the coal ash is a different commodity from coal, obviously for the purposes of taxability on the sale of coal ash. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned assessment order as well as the revisional order cannot be sustained in law and accordingly they are hereby set aside. The authorities below shall frame a fresh assessment order in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petitions are hereby allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of W. P. No. 280 of 1998.
-
2004 (12) TMI 659 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Delhi reported in 2003 5 SCC 257 are not relevant to the present case. They are cases relating to the Kar Samadhan Scheme issued by the Central Government under the Finance Act to settle the dispute of tax finally under the Income-tax Act, Central Excise Act and the Customs Act. So far as the interest under section 8(1) of the Act is concerned, up to June 4, 1986 before the amendment in the recognition certificate, it can be said to be a case of bona fide belief and disputing the liability bona fidely but after June 4, 1986, there was no bona fide on the part of dealer in claiming exemption. Therefore, I am of the view that tax assessed up to June 4, 1986 cannot be treated as admitted tax for the purpose of demand of interest under section 8(1) of the Act but on the tax assessed for the period after June 4, 1986 interest under section 8(1) of the Act should be charged. In the result, revision is allowed. Order of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2004 (12) TMI 658 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Sub-section (3) authorises the Commissioner even to revise, modify or uphold the order of the appellate authority. The language employed in section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Act and subsection (1) of section 36 of the Act of 1993 are identical and, as such, capable of same interpretation. Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 36 has to be interpreted in tune with the meaning of the substantive provisions of the Act. Therefore, it would be just and proper to hold that the suo motu powers of Commissioner under subsection (1) of section 36 will also cover an appellate order other than the orders passed by the Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, there cannot be any bar in exercise of this power to revise an order of assessment passed by an assessing officer relying upon the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals). The impugned notice is, therefore, not without jurisdiction. 28.. In the result the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2004 (12) TMI 657 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the impost of entry tax would not be attracted. 13.. Resultantly, we do not find any error committed by the learned single Judge while expressing the view that mere entry in the local area would not bring the case within the sweep for the purpose of entry tax. We think it apposite at this juncture to state that view has been expressed exclusively in connection with entry tax imposition, realisation, composition and levy of penalty governed by the aforesaid Act. It is a complete enactment in itself. When a definition of entry tax , local area and the incidence of taxation have been given, the court is not required to travel beyond it to get any other kind of meaning. Therefore, we are of the considered view that mere entry of title deeds in the local area could not attract the liability of entry tax. 14.. Consequently, we concur with a view taken by the learned single Judge and dismiss the letters patent appeal. However there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
