|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 503 Records
-
2005 (11) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Reference to High Court - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... stantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal (i) Whether the goods manufactured on job-work basis by the appellant are branded goods of SAIL for the purpose of para 4 and explanations (iii) and (ix) of Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E.? (ii) Whether the value of clearance of SAIL s branded goods is to be taken into account for the purpose of computing aggregate value of clearances for exemption vide Exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dt. 28-2-93 as amended. 5. The appeal is admitted. 6. Call for the records of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi so as to reach this Court within a period of two months.
-
2005 (11) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Offence - Sentence ... ... ... ... ..... l times and for various other reasons for which prosecution or trial court can least be blamed. Therefore, so far as the ground that the petitioner had to go through agony and ordeal of a protracted protected trial, the petitioner is to blame himself rather than to make it a ground for reduction of sentence. 9.The facts and circumstances of the case as noticed by the trial court in judgment are that the petitioner has used fake travel document i.e. giving fake parentage address etc. in the said document. The value of the gold recovered from the petitioner was more than Rupees Sixteen Lacs which leads only to an inference that the petitioner was a gold smuggler. The learned trial court has already taken a lenient view by awarding the minimum sentence of 3 years und small fine which by no standard can be said to be excessive or harsh. Therefore, this Court find no ground at all to reduce/modify the sentence. 10.In the result the revision petition fails and is dismissed as such.
-
2005 (11) TMI 82 - SC ORDER
Prosecution - Section 135 of the Customs Act read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - Held that:- It appears that after interception of a vessel on 24th October, 1982 adjudication proceeding started in which the vessel in question was confiscated and penalty was imposed against the appellant. Arising out of the penalty proceeding, the matter was taken to Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') and, by order dated 18th April, 1995, the appeal has been allowed and penalty has been deleted on merit. It has been submitted that in view of the fact that penalty imposed, against the appellant under the provisions of the Act, has been deleted by CEGAT on merit, it would be just and expedient to quash the prosecution as continuance thereof would amount to an abuse of the process of court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in K.C. Builders & Anr. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax - [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court], in which, following its early decisions, this Court quashed criminal prosecution of the accused under the provisions of the Income-tax Act on the sole ground that penalty imposed against him was deleted on merit - present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2005 (11) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty - EXIM ... ... ... ... ..... n payment of the amount of personal bond given by the petitioner. 9.Ms. Balani submitted that the amount of penalty and fine be reduced. She referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.B. Impex v. Union of India 2005 (187) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.) . In that matter, the amount had been reduced. That was however a case where the amount of fine had already been deposited. In the present case, the goods which were sought to be confiscated have been redeemed by giving bank guarantee. On this bank guarantee, the respondents will not get any other amount apart from the guaranteed amount. They will not get the interest thereon. Mr. Chaudhary has rightly pointed out that the C.I.F. value of the goods was in the range of Rs. 80,000/- and, therefore, the fine of Rs. 90,000/- was fully justified. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to reduce the amount of fine and penalty in any manner. 10.Petition accordingly dismissed though without any order as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... he credit had been claimed, it was not a fit case in which duty could be waived in toto. What is significant is that the petitioner had not claimed any financial or other hardship either before the Tribunal or before us in support of its prayer for a total waiver of the duty. In the absence of any such claim and keeping in view the language employed in the proviso to Section 35F, a waiver of 50 of the duty amount sufficiently served the interest of justice. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. This writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court could at least extend time for making of the deposit as the period granted by the Tribunal is expiring on 4th December, 2005. Mr. Mridul counsel for the respondent does not seriously oppose that prayer. In the circumstances, therefore, we extend the time for making of the pre-deposit in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal by four weeks from today.
-
2005 (11) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Fibre glass and aluminium sheets - Exemption, EOU - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ted premises, the conclusion is irresistible that fibre glass and aluminium sheets in question have been used by the assessee, which is 100 export oriented undertaking, in connection with manufacture of goods and if that is so, the condition of Exemption Notification stands fulfilled. The exemption Notification provides that capital goods brought in 100 export oriented undertaking are to be used in connection with manufacture of goods and It Is not the condition that such capital goods should be used in manufacture of goods directly. That satisfies the basic condition of exemption notification. Therefore, levy of excise duty and consequent recovery of penalty under Rule 173Q cannot be sustained, for the reasons stated in the impugned notices and orders. 16.As a result, the appeal is allowed. The order of learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner and the assessing authority are set aside and the show cause notices are discharged.
-
2005 (11) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ jurisdiction - Judicial review ... ... ... ... ..... mmons have been issued merely because the petitioners had made complaints against the revenue authorities to the Punjab Human Rights Commission. Mere issue of summons under the Act for the purpose of investigations cannot per se be held to be on account of vindictive attitude of the revenue officials. In the absence of any material indicating arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by any authority, it is not within the domain of power of judicial review to even comment on the summons issued, on the presumption that these have been issued for some ulterior purpose. As noted above, we do not find any such material on record. 4. Being bereft of any merit, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to add that, as already recorded in order dated 29-5-2004, passed in C.W.P. No. 8724 of 2004, the petitioners shall be examined only during office hours and in case the statements/investigations remain inconclusive at the end of the day, the same may be recorded on the following day.
-
2005 (11) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
EXIM Policy - DEPB licence - Delay in issue - Investigation ... ... ... ... ..... etition has been filed. 5. Now, the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade one Mr. R. Muthuraj has filed an affidavit in reply on November 23, 2005. Mr. Mishra appearing for the respondents state that the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade wanted to make an enquiry as to how the export and imports were arranged by the petitioner. We fail to understand that if the Additional Commissioner of Customs (DEPB) informs the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade that they have no objection for issuance of licence, how this office goes into further investigation and prolongs issuance of necessary licence. We are not at all satisfied by this explanation and in the circumstances we are of the view that the particular licence is unnecessarily being denied to the petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to issue necessary licence to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 13(a) with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Rectification of mistake - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... considered opinion, the decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 540 (Garikapati v. Subbiah Choudhry) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case for the simple reason, in Garikapati case, referred supra deals with a right of appeal to the superior Court accrued to the litigant on the date of the lis commenced, but not with reference to the right to seek rectification of any mistake apparent on the record in the order already passed by the authority and seek an amendment on bringing to the notice of the mistake to the authorities concerned as in the instant case. The amendment proposed to Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act as brought in by Section 140 of the Finance Act, 2002 is intended to introduce certain procedural restrictions but not to take away any substantial right, such as filing of the appeal vested on the litigant. 15.Hence, finding no merits, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 17638 of 2005 is also dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... h creates any irreversible situation but having regard to the facts and circumstances and more particularly, the fact that the industry is closed ever since June, 2003 due to which the petitioner is not in a position even to make the pre-deposit, we consider it appropriate to modify the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly direct the Tribunal to hear the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 5. In the result, Stay Order 324-327 of 2005, dated 19-4-2005 is modified and the petitioner is granted waiver of the balance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs that was required to be pre-deposited. The Tribunal shall not insist for the pre-deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 20 lakhs but hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law within the above stipulated period. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2005 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Finance Act, 2000 - Cenvat/Modvat - Input ... ... ... ... ..... nder Rules 57A and 57B or even when such credit had not been allowed but having been made subject matter of an order or decision of any Court or Tribunal etc., had been extended the benefit of such Modvat credit, nevertheless even such benefit is now sought to be withdrawn or taken away. 16.Even on applying the test as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. (supra), the provision of Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 achieves that very purpose which has been indicated by the Supreme Court to be the object and the purpose for which a validating levy can be made. If such is the law as laid down and declared by the Supreme Court on application of this provision, it inevitably follows that the validity of Section 112 has to be necessarily upheld. It is for this reason, the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has to be rejected. 17.In the result, these writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
2005 (11) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, cost of repacking of detergent powder into 20 gms. and 30 gms. sachets, which did not amount to manufacture at the relevant time, was includible in the assessable value of "ariel micro-system" (AMS) cleared by Procter & Gamble ("assessees" for short) in bulk packs of 25 kgs. at its factory gate at Mandideep, Bhopal?
Held that:- The key question which was required to be decided by the Tribunal in the present case was concerning determination of the "assessable value" of 25 kgs. bulk packs of AMS from the appellants' factory at Mandideep, Bhopal. If the activity of repacking did not amount to manufacture at the relevant time, was the Commissioner justified in computing the assessable value of the bulk packs based on the retail price of 20 gms. and 30 gms. sachets sold through the depots of the appellants? This question has not been decided by the Tribunal. Similarly, in the context of suppression and in the context of invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal has not considered the argument of the appellants that they were not guilty of suppression as the law was amended vide Finance Bill, 1994, when the activity of "repacking" was treated as "manufacture" for the first time. In our view, these questions were required to be decided by the Tribunal in the present case, particularly, in the light of the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the said Act. They have not been decided by the Tribunal.
Civil appeal filed by the assessees is allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for its fresh decision.
-
2005 (11) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
Duty Demand - Held that:- when the goods have been cleared on the basis of approved classification list, the demand can only be prospective and Tribunal consequently set aside the demand as unsustainable - The amended Act was challenged and this Court in ITW Signode India Limited v. Collector of Central Excise reported in [2003 (11) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] upheld the constitutional validity of the Amending Act i.e. Finance Act, 2000 amending Section 11A of the Act. Resultantly the duty could be levied retrospective as well - Since the law laid down by this Court in Cotspun Limited's case (1999 (9) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) is no longer a good law, the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside - case is remitted to the Tribunal - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2005 (11) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Section 4(1)(a) of the Act had to be applied or Section 4(1)(b) of Valuation Rules?
Held that:- The respondent No. 1 assessee had submitted before the Department and before us that if the assessee was not permitted to rely upon the formula laid down in M/s. Ujagar Prints III [1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] then it was entitled to discounts and advertisement expenses. These were not allowed by the Commissioner. As the question whether the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to discounts and deductions claimed would only arise if it held that the ratio of M/s. Ujagar Prints III would not apply, the Tribunal did not address this aspect of the matter at all nor did it consider whether the merchant-manufacturers and the respondent No. 1 were related persons. Since the Tribunal, in our opinion, wrongly upheld the respondent's contention that the formula in M/s. Ujagar Prints III would apply in full measure, it is now necessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the respondents were related persons and whether the respondent No. 1 would be entitled to claim discounts or could exclude the advertisement expenses incurred by the dealers.
We therefore allow the appeals and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for the purpose of determining the nature of the alleged relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the other respondents. If it is found that the respondents are not related persons then the earlier decision of the Tribunal will stand. If on the other hand it is found that the respondents are related, the Tribunal will consider the questions of discounts and deductions claimed by the respondents before remanding the matter to the Commissioner for a correct computation of the calculation errors.
-
2005 (11) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Customs) - Designing and Engineering - Held that:- appellant would be liable to pay the import duty on the designing and engineering so far as it has gone as an input into the manufacture, supply and transportation to GDR Port of machineries, equipment, but strongly denies its liability to pay the customs duty on the cost of designing and engineering which has gone into the erection, commissioning and supervision of short term and long term tests of machinery and equipments, as the latter has taken place in India and is a post importation activity - Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and therefore the order of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law and if need be by taking additional evidence - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2005 (11) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
Excise duty evasion - Held that:- It is not disputed that the sales made to the persons other than the related person, were of significant quantity, viz, for the period from 1st June, 1987 to March 1988 the sales to persons other than the related person was to the tune of nearly 36% and for the period from June 1988 to March 1989 the same was to the tune of nearly 43%. Thus, in our view, the price at which the goods were sold to the persons other than the related person could form the basis for determining the value of the goods for the purposes of levying duty thereon. Since the assessee had cleared the goods by way of sale in favour of a related person at the same price at which it had been sold to other buyers, we are inclined to accept the view taken by the Tribunal as well as that of the Collector. Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 68 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the respondents to decide the application filed by the petitioner afresh taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the writ petition and additional affidavit regarding the assurance as well as the letter dated March 29, 1988, written by the Commissioner of Income-tax to the Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Jaipur, in relation to the waiver of penalty and interest on the tax amount in the case of the petitioner and the fact that on such an assurance the petitioner deposited the amount in cash on the request of the authorities. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated September 11, 1991 (annexure I), is set aside. The case is remanded to the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, for deciding the applications dated January 20, 1989, filed by the petitioner taking into account the facts relating to the passing of the order dated March 29, 1988 and subsequent facts regarding the deposit of amount by cash challan on 30th March, 1988, as has been mentioned above.
-
2005 (11) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... delay. But the learned trial court did not consider the aforementioned proviso and did not consider the fact whether the tax payable by the applicants on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax paid by them exceeded Rs. 3,000 or not. In case, it does not exceed Rs. 3,000, the applicants could not have been proceeded against under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act. The applicants have been proceeded against and convicted without taking the aforementioned situation into consideration. Hence, their conviction cannot be sustained in law. The prosecution is also unduly delayed. The learned appellate court has also not considered the vital aspects of the matter. In the result, this revision is allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act is set aside and the accused/applicants are acquitted of the charges aforesaid. The fine if deposited, be refunded to them. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
-
2005 (11) TMI 66 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ant, it was not fair on the part of the learned trial court to refuse adjournment for production of defence evidence on considerations which are found to be against facts. Therefore, great prejudice has been caused to the accused applicant in defending himself for want of the trial being fair. In view of the above matter without dwelling upon any other argument, this court reaches the conclusion that it is a case which needs remand. In the result, the conviction and sentence impugned are set aside with consequential benefits. The case is remanded to the learned trial court with a direction that an appropriate opportunity be afforded to the applicant accused to produce his defence evidence and thereafter final arguments be heard and the case be disposed of according to law. It is also directed that the applicant should appear before the learned trial court, either in person or through counsel, on December 19, 2005. Let the records of the court below to go back with post haste.
-
2005 (11) TMI 65 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interest Payable By Government ... ... ... ... ..... funds without authority of law, as a natural corollary, the former is required to be compensated. Therefore, once it is accepted that interest on refund was not paid and the interest was withheld without being authorized by law, such interest would take the same colour as the excess amount of tax which became refundable and accordingly, interest on such withheld interest or delayed interest is required to be paid by the Revenue. In the circumstances, the petition is partly allowed. It is held that (a) The petitioner is entitled to the grant of interest on Rs. 54,00,000 under section 244(1A) of the Act from February 1, 1991, to September 25, 1992. (b) The petitioner shall also be entitled to the payment of simple interest on the amount of interest payable on the sum of Rs. 54,00,000 at the rate specified under section 244(1A) of the Act from the date it had become payable till the date of actual payment. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs.
....
|
