|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Heating Elements - Demand - Limitation
... ... ... ... ..... scription of the tariff entry. Although from the process of manufacture it appears that knitted fabric comes into existence in the intermediate stage in the process of manufacture of the heating elements, but in the records before us there is no material to show that the glass fabric was in the condition in which it is understood as glass fabric in the commercial parlance, or that the same was marketable. Therefore, in my view, the fabric in the intermediate stage should not stand in the way of classification of the heating elements under Tariff Item 22F (iv). Accordingly, I classify the impugned product under this tariff item and not under Item 68 of the tariff. 20. So far as limitation is concerned, I agree with Shri Vasavada that 5 years limitation is not applicable in the present case. I agree with the reasons recorded by him in paragraph 15 (supra). In the circumstances, I confirm the demand for duty for a period of six months prior to the issue of the show-cause notice.
-
1990 (9) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the provisions of said paragraph 85 of the Import Trade Control Hand Book, 1969 prohibited the import of stainless steel strips?
Held that:- If the entry contained only the words "stainless steel" it was possible to argue that stainless steel in any form—whether strips, sheets, plates, circles, ingots, rods etc. was included in it and hence prohibited. But the entry proceeded to mention the specific forms of stainless steel. It would mean that stainless steel only in its original form whatever it may be and its specific forms enumerated therein were alone banned. It may also mean that the conjunctive "and" after the words "stainless steel" had crept in the entry inadvertently. Such a reading of the entry would be legitimate taking into account its history referred to earlier. We have pointed out that in 1967 the relevant entry was "stainless steel of any specifications" whereas in 1968 it was "stainless steel sheets/plates/strips/circles of any specifications". The erratum only brought the situation to the 1968 position. It is also for this reason that we cannot accept the contention that the erratum only made clear or explicit what was implicit in the entry earlier. This is apart from the settled legal position that taxation statutes have to be construed strictly, and the benefit of doubt, if any has to be given to the assessee. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... requires proper adjudication initially by the Departmental authorities. It cannot be said that on any earlier occasion even in the proceedings relied upon by the appellants there was any objective consideration and adjudication of this issue. Therefore, we consider it to be not an appropriate case wherein the authorities should be precluded from going into the question and adjudicating the issue objectively. Further, the balance of convenience and exigencies of situation also mandates us to reject the plea of the appellants and relegate them to the authorities to face an enquiry any have the issue adjudicated in an appropriate manner. It will be always open to them to work out their remedies thereafter and the appellants will not be put to any disadvantage. The appellants already successfully dragged on the matter for almost a decade and we find no justification to come to their rescue. 17.For all these reasons, we dismiss the writ appeals with costs of Rs. 1,000/- (one set).
-
1990 (9) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Search, seizure and investigation - Customs - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ct is the Customs Act under which import of certain notified goods is prohibited and contravention of the conditions of licences issued under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act in respect of the prohibited goods has necessarily to be investigated by the authorities under the Customs Act. 45. The argument of the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the Customs Department is altogether excluded merely because both the enactments contain similar and parallel powers conferred on the respective authorities administering the particular act is, therefore, rejected. As already explained, it is the primary and statutory responsibility of the Customs Department to investigate into any irregularities committed by the licencees which may result in evasion of customs duty. 46. In this view of the matter, I uphold the action taken by the Customs Authority to unearth evasion of duty and to take all such proceedings as empowered by the Act. 47. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1990 (9) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ore us was raised or dealt with by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, we have expressed ourselves on the interpretation of the said notification, which, in our opinion gives effect to the object underlying the notification. 10. No other decision for or against the question arising herein was brought to our notice by counsel for either side. 11. We may also mention that this writ petition is filed against the orders of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (third respondent), without availing of the alternative remedy of appeal provided by the statute. There is no reason why the petitioner should not have followed the said statutory remedy. However, since the writ petition was admitted as far back as 1980 and has remained pending on the file of this court all these years, we did not think it appropriate to dismiss the same on the said ground and proceeded to decide the matter on merits. 12. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT
Limitation for filing an application under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act for claim of Refund
Held that:- The clearance of goods made by the appellant between 1st April and 3rd of June, 1985 were in accordance with the procedure for provisional assessment. In such a situation clause (e) of para (B) of the Explanation under Section 11B will be attracted. In this case the RT-12 Return for the month of April, 1985 was filed on 8-5-1985 and the same was assessed on 29-10-1985. It is, therefore, only from the date of this assessment that time-bar in Section 11B will operate. In the present case the refund application had been filed on the 30th of October, 1985. It cannot, therefore, said to be time barred. In favour of assessee.
-
1990 (9) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Baggage (Customs) - "Household effects" ... ... ... ... ..... ity of Transfer of Residence Rules to the item of Generator being a household effect, the benefit should normally go to the petitioner in such cases, more particularly when the generator, in the present case, is a portable and cannot be ordinarily used for merchandise or commercial purpose. 16. Having regard to the above said circumstances, it is not unreasonable to hold that the portable generator is covered under household effect under Rule 2 and Section 79 of the Customs Act and that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under the Transfer of Residence Rules. 17. In the light of the above discussions, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the revisional authority dated 16th February, 1990 is quashed and it is directed that respondent No. 2 should release the Honda Portable Generator to the petitioner forthwith giving him the benefit of Transfer of Residence without payment of demurrage. The petitioner will also be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000/-.
-
1990 (9) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Paper and Board - Writ jurisdiction - Availability of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... m promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. If it is held that the filing of appeal before the Supreme Court pending huge money for a small scale industry is the only remedy, in that event, that could, in my view, deny opportunity for securing justice by reason of economic disabilities. 44. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order of the respondent No. 8 dated 28th March, 1985 and the orders passed by the Collector of Appeals as well as the Assistant Collector, are set aside and it is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to grant exemption under the Notification No. 70/76-C.E., dated 16th March, 1976 in respect of the mill board made out of mixed waste paper with jute stalk and straw without mechanical pulp.
-
1990 (9) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ntendent of Central Excise, Pune, for payment of differential duty are required to be struck down. 9. Accordingly, petition succeeds and order dated September 2,1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune and copy of which is annexed as exhibit U to the petition is set aside and orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune, on November 29,1980 and March 20,1981 and copies of which are annexed as exhibits D and H to the petition are upheld. The demand notices dated September 8,1981 and October 6,1981 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pune, are struck down. Petitioner No. 2 company is entitled to apply for refund as a consequence of this order and such refund application shall be disposed of by the Superintendent of Central Excise as early as possible. The bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order to stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Repeal ... ... ... ... ..... llector of Central Excise, Kanpur and Anr. . We are unable to accept the submission, We have already held in Writ Petition No. 1645 of 1982 decided on September 18,1990 and in Writ Petition No. 2232 of 1982 decided on September 20,1990 that the proceedings commenced under Rule 10 do not come to an end merely because of deletion of the rule. We have held that proceedings are saved in view of provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act. Shri Shah very fairly pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 844 Gwalior Rayon Mfg. (Wvg) Co. v. Union of India and Ors. and Delhi High Court in the judgment reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 205 Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. have also held that the proceedings are saved and do not come to an end by deletion of Rule 10. Accordingly, the contention urged by Shri Shah cannot be accepted and the petition must fail. 4. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Detention certificate - Goods allowed clearance subject to certain conditions ... ... ... ... ..... he meantime, the first respondent issued a show cause notice dated 9-7-1990 and that adjudication proceedings were pending. It is at this stage, the petitioner has come to this court by filing the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 4. On notice from this court, Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appears and makes representation that in view of the fact that there has been no order passed by this court in so far as the grant of detention certificates, the respondents are perfectly justified in seeking such a clarification. In view of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 7146 of 1990, permitting the petitioner to get clearance of the goods on compliance of the conditions imposed therein, the respondents are directed to issue a detention certificate on the application filed by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. This Writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demand for duty - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... should be considered as the relevant date to find out whether proceedings under Rule 10 can survive. The submission is devoid of any merit, The show cause notices merged in the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and these orders were passed long before November 17,1980. The second aspect of the matter is that we are unable to share the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We have held in our judgment dated September 18, 1990 delivered in Writ Petition No. 1645 of 1982 that in spite of deletion of Rule 10, the proceedings can continue in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Rule 10 was deleted on November 17, 1980 and was substituted by the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. For these reasons, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Khemkar that the proceedings commenced by show cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be continued and orders enforced. 3. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction - Refund - Limitation - Order refusing refund appealable under the statute ... ... ... ... ..... tification, as the case may be, is struck down with the result that the adjudication/assessment made with reference to such provision/notification also falls to ground. 5. Secondly, so long as the order dated 5-12-1985 stands, it is highly doubtful whether the petitioner can claim refund because in some other proceeding a different view was taken. The proper course for the petitioner would have been to file an appeal against the said order. Inasmuch as the appellate authority has the power to condone the delay, it may probably be advisable for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with an appeal and also request him to condone the delay. It is open to the petitioner to satisfy the appellate authority that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and we are sure that if the appellate authority is so satisfied, it will entertain the appeal according to law. 6. For the above reasons the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ar Ahmad, who is said to have received the said communication, is connected with the petitioner or his industry. The petitioner s name is Afzal Ahmad. It is a proprietary concern. In the writ petition it is repeatedly averred that Nisar Ahmad is no way connected with the petitioner-industry. No material is also placed before us to indicate the connection between Nisar Ahmad and the petitioner or his industry. In the circumstances, we hold that the Central Government was not justified in holding that the adjudication order was served upon the petitioner, more particularly when the postal acknowledgement itself was not available in the file. Even the certificate of the Post Master, referred to in the counter-affidavit, is not placed before us. 3. For the above reasons, the order of the Central Government must be held to be based on no relevant evidence and must be quashed. It is accordingly quashed and the order of the Appellate Collector dated 19-8-1978 is restored. No costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Demand for duty by Assessment Memorandum (Endorsement) ... ... ... ... ..... It does not appear in this case that any such show cause notice was given before disallowing the said credit taken by the manufacturer petitioner. A specific assertion has been made in the writ petition that no show cause notice was given by the Superintendent before making the impugned endorsement (See paras 9 and 11 of the writ petition). In the absence of the counter affidavit, we accept the said statement. On that basis we direct that the impugned endorsement dated 27-8-1987 shall be treated as a show cause notice within the meaning of sub-rule (1) of Rule 57-I of the said Act. The petitioner shall furnish the explanation within one month from today. A certified copy of this order shall be filed along with explanation/objection to be filed by the petitioner before the proper officer. The proper officer shall thereupon consider the said objection/explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. 3. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.
-
1990 (9) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Goods bearing foreign markings seized from possession of accused ... ... ... ... ..... fact that the charge sheets were promptly filed. Delay in the course of proceedings has now been unavoidable because of heavy arrears. This could not be made a ground for deleting the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioners. I find that the learned Magistrate had shown enough leniency by sentencing the petitioners to six months R.I and a fine of Rs. 500 only. So far as the learned Sessions Judge is concerned, that court showed further leniency by reducing the sentence from 6 months to 4 months. I therefore do not find that this court should interfere with the same. In the result revision is partly allowed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner No. 3 accused No. 3 is set aside. Fine if paid is ordered to be refunded to him. The order of conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 - accused Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby confirmed. Rule made partly absolute. Prayer for time to surrender till 28th September 1990 is granted.
-
1990 (9) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - Countervailing Duty - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... ered only under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This rule is worded as under - Every person who produces, cures or manufactures any excisable goods, or who stores such goods in a warehouse, shall pay the duty or duties leviable on such goods, at such time and place and to such person as may be designated, in, or under the authority of these Rules, whether the payment of such duty or duties is secured by bond or otherwise. Petitioners as owners of the vessel were not producers, curers or manufacturers of excisable goods viz. the damaged sugar. Therefore, on this ground also the additional duty was not legally collectable or retainable. 7. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the petition succeeds. Respondents do refrain from giving effect to Exh. N and do refund unto petitioners a sum of Rs. 5,88,135.20 ps. with interest at Rate 6 per annum from date of petition until payment. Rule in the above terms made absolute with parties left to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ndent No. 1. I cannot agree. The detention of goods was at the instance of respondent No.. 1 and he alone will have to issue the required detention certificate. Whether the International Airport Authority does or does not respect that certificate, remains to be seen and if the said authority considers that it is not bound by the said certificate, the petitioner has other remedies open to it. The International Airport Authority s joinder is not required to enable the petitioner to secure relief in terms of prayer (b). 5. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the petition succeeds. It is hereby declared that the importation of the goods figuring in the petition was valid. Further directed that respondent No. 1 do issue a detention certificate specified in prayer (b) of the petition to the petitioner. The Bank Guarantee and Bond furnished by the petitioner to stand discharged forthwith. Rule in these terms made absolute, with parties being left to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - Imprest Licence ... ... ... ... ..... roduced before the obligations are carried out by the petitioners. In my judgment, the reference to the policy for the period AM 85 is totally extraneous and irrelevant for considering the claim of the petitioners. In the present case the endorsement was made on the last day of the prevalence of the Import Policy for 1982-83. Therefore, the observations of the learned single Judge will apply with greater force to the facts of the present petitions. 3. To sum up, the decision in D. Navinchandra s case must be read as restricted to Additional licences and not covering the case of importations made under imprest licences. Therefore the importations made by the petitioners were not illegal and the threatened action of the respondents was unwarranted in law. So declaring, I make the rules absolute to that extent, leaving parties to bear their own costs. Bank guarantees/bonds, if furnished, to be kept alive for a period of eight weeks from today and to stand discharged thereafter.
-
1990 (9) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Interest payable on refund amount ... ... ... ... ..... to make refund is concerned. As a matter of fact the Government ought to be more careful while dealing with its citizens and in fairnees. It should have, if not before, at least soon after the judgment of the Supreme Court itself refunded the amount wrong-fully collected by it from the respondent. It chose not to do so without offering any justification for it and we are, therefore, of the opinion that substantial justice was done by the learned Single Judge in burdening the State with payment of interest for the money wrongfully withheld by it from the respondent. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the interest awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by the learned single Judge for the period during which the amount had been wrongfully withheld from the respondent is perfectly justified, fair, reasonable and equitable. No cause has been made out for interference by this Court. There is no merit in this writ appeal which is hereby dismissed. No costs.
............
|
