|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 644 Records
-
2005 (1) TMI 693 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed by an order dated March 18, 2002. In the said order dated March 18, 2002 the Supreme Court has observed that the issue involved is pure determination of fact by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in the present Application. Hence, the Central Excise Application stands dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 692 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e appeal. If the amount is not deposited within the time specified then the appeal shall stand dismissed. The stay application stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal No. E/3763/05-Excise When this appeal was called out for hearing, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellants that vituperative, insulting and browbeating language was used in the appeal memo (as for example paragraphs 3,4 and 5 thereof) and we would take a strong exception to such abusive and offending language being used against a quasi-judicial authority, the learned counsel for the appellants thereupon sought the matter to be kept in the second sitting and now when it is called out, he has placed before us a writing signed by the Director on behalf of the company, in which it is stated that he profusely and unconditionally apologises for the language used in the appeal memo. We accept the apology and expect that such unnecessary vituperative and insulting language is not used in the appeal memo.
-
2005 (1) TMI 691 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Act was demanded. First appellate authority set aside the demand of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act and the Tribunal has confirmed. 18. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. 19. At no stage the dealer admitted the liability on the freight charges. It was highly disputed question whether the freight charges would form part of the turn over. Therefore, tax levied on the amount of freight charges can not be treated as admitted tax. First appellate authority and the Tribunal has rightly deleted the payment of interest under Section 8 (1) of the Act. However, it is stated that the issue whether the freight charges would form part of the turn over is still subjudice. In case, it would he held that the freight charges would form part of the turn over, the interest under Section 8 (1-B) of the Act would only be demanded and not under Section 8 (1) of the Act. 20. In the result, Sales Tax Revision No.482 of 1992 fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 690 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 689 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 688 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 687 - HIGH COURT MADHYA PRADESH
... ...
... ... ..... e that since no contraband article was recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, no action was taken against him and later on, again he was searched by the present investigating officer. In all fairness the Investigating Officer Salim Khan (P.W. 7) ought to have seized the earlier notice under Section- 50 of the Act and should have submitted it alongwith charge-sheet. This is an additional ground, in order to hold that the case of the prosecution is suspicious. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in hold- ing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all possible doubt and by giving benefit of doubt to the appellant the impugned judgment of conviction is hereby set aside. 16. Resultanlly, this appeal is allowed and the conviction of appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is in custody, he be released forthwith, if not required any other case. The amount of ₹ 9,000/- seized from appellant be returned to him.
-
2005 (1) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.EX., Visakhapatnam, 2003 (54) RLT 317 (CEGAT-Bang.) 2003 (161) ELT 285 (Tri.-Bang.), which decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. D 5977 of 2003 dated 7.5.2003. 4. Following the above said decisions, the petition is dis missed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') would not apply to the suits on the Original Side of the High Court and that such suits would continue to be governed by the High Court Original Side Rules?
-
2005 (1) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
Whether by the conveyance deed dated 9.6.1994, the plant and machinery were also transferred; and if so, whether the High Court was right in accepting the valuation as made by the authorities for the purpose of stamp duty payable ?
-
2005 (1) TMI 683 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ed. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 280-292 of 2002. No stay.
-
2005 (1) TMI 682 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ectly to the service provided for the given period. In other words there should be a documentary proof relating to bills/invoices issued to service user and this documentary proof should indicate the value of such consumables even if the same is not separately apportioned and indicated in each bills/invoices issued by the service provided. Notification No. 12/2003 does require evidence of sale of these consumables and the best evidence is of course their separate indication on bills/invoices issued by the service provider. But he can still claim the deductions if he can produce relatable documentary proof specifically indicating the value/cost of the said goods and materials consumed in terms of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20-6-2003, during a given period during which service provider issued bills and invoices. 10. I allow the appeal setting aside the impugned order. Adjudicating authority should rework the duty liability after allowing deductions as envisaged above.
-
2005 (1) TMI 681 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 680 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Unexplained investment in the trading account - Income from undisclosed sources - Onus to prove stock statement submitted to the bank showed inflated figures? - Whether, the Tribunal’s order deleting the addition is not vitiated on account of its failure to consider all relevant facts? - HELD THAT:- It observed that the statement submitted by the assessee was not verified by the Bank Officials. The stocks were only hypothecated and not pledged. The Income-tax Officer could not point out any defect in the trading account of the assessee and the books of account maintained by it which has also been accepted by the Central Excise Department as well as by the Sales Tax Department could not be disbelieved.
The explanation given by the assessee was that it inflated the value and quantity of the stocks in the bank declaration to obtain a number of drafts from the bank. This explanation was accepted by the Tribunal. The matter came up before this Court and it was held that Tribunal’s decision was correct.
The Tribunal has also found that there was actually no verification of the stock made by any bank official. The learned standing counsel could not point out any contrary decision to show that a practice to inflate stocks hypothecated with the bank with a view to avail higher overdraft facilities, is not prevalent in business community.
In view of the fact that the explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. Thus, we answer both the questions referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (1) TMI 679 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... oners has very fairly stated that the petitioners do not object to payment of duty subject to final determination by the appellate authority. If that be so, we clarify that the petitioners may deposit the amount of duty with interest calculated at the rate of 10 per cent per annum on the amount of duty as aforesaid within a period of four weeks from today and on compliance the appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals shall stand restored and heard and decided on merits. The amount will be treated as deposit by the petitioners available for disbursement in terms of the judgment in appeal. Subject to that clarification, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (1) TMI 678 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the above appeal are only a finding of facts. We do not find any substantial questions of law involved in this appeal. Hence appeal stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 677 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal’s Order, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to go into any other question. We thus see no reason to interfere. The appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 676 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the respondent/assessee. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has discharged the onus which was on him to explain the nature and source of cash credit in question. The assessee discharged the onus by placing (i) confirmation letters of the cash creditors; (ii) their affidavits; (iii) their full addresses and GIR numbers and permanent account numbers. It has found that the assessee’s burden stood discharged and so, no addition to his total income on account of cash credits was called for. In view of this finding, we find that the Tribunal was right in reversing the order of the AAC, setting aside the assessment order. 5. In view of above discussion, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., against the department/Revenue and in favour of the assessee/respondent. In view of the answer of the first question in affirmative, the second question has become academic and needs no adjudication by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (1) TMI 675 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a former member of the Police force is eligible to become a member of NHRC [National Human Rights Commission]?
-
2005 (1) TMI 674 - SUPREME COURT
Whether an appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and election?
What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression "A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years" as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Is it necessary that the term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single offence to attract the disqualification?
What is the purport of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of RPA?
Whether the protection against disqualification conferred by sub- section (4) on a member of a House would continue to apply though the candidate had ceased to be a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of nomination or election?
........
|
