|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 217 Records
-
1980 (2) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Paper - Refund of duty wrongly realized ... ... ... ... ..... sed, that these notifications showed that the meaning of the earlier notifications dated 8-9-1967 was different is not correct. As such the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty only at the concessional rate and not to the basis that Badami paper was coloured paper. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner has been overcharged in respect of the excise duty. In spite of this finding the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in view of the findings recorded on the other questions. 19. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. Stay order, if any, shall stand discharged. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner had made an oral prayer for granting certificate of fitness under Article 133 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the case doss not involve substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The certificate prayed for is, therefore, refused.
-
1980 (2) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
Whether he burden of proving an innocent receipt of gold lay upon the appellant under Section 106, Evidence Act?
Held that:- It is true that in the instant case the seizure was not made under Section 111 of the Customs Act and the prosecution could not press into service the presumption arising from Section 123 of the Customs Act, that does not clinch the issue. It is proved that the appellant was in possession of gold with foreign markings which was found to be in the shape of biscuits or bars kept in a secret chamber of the safe, and that the accused admitted that the gold was brought form outside the country and was given to him by somebody whose identity he was not prepared to disclose. Thus, the appellant knew as to who was the person who had given him the gold and if he also knew, as he says, that the gold was smuggled, he must have known whether the person who delivered the gold to him brought it under a permit or without any permit because at the time of the occurrence the import of gold was banned excepting under special circumstances. Having regard to the totality of the situation, there is no reason why the prosecution would not be entitled to call into aid the combined effect of the presumptions under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has clearly proved the charge under Section 135(b)(ii) of the Customs Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT
Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 5 were acquitted by the charges framed against them
Held that:- Merely because P.Ws. 2 and 4 were Customs Officers their evidence could not be rejected outright because they were doubtless competent officers to prove the search and the recoveries. Thus, we are unable to agree with the view of the High Court that in the instant case, the confessions of the respondents were not corroborated by the recoveries as proved by the search lists and the witnesses to the same.
Having considered the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 9, we are satisfied that the confessional statements made by the respondents before the Customs Officers (which are undoubtedly admissible in evidence) were fully corroborated by the witnesses mentioned above.
On an overall consideration of the evidence, therefore, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court acquitting the respondents is vitiated by a clear error of law. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Chief Presidency Magistrate convicting and sentencing the respondents, as indicated above is restored.
-
1980 (2) TMI 94 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... part of other members of the house-hold to keep the keys in absence of the licensee for making them available to the Central Excise Officers on their visit. There is no reason to doubt the petitioner s bona fides in this case that he was out of station, when the officers visited his premises on 11-9-75. Imposition of personal penalty cannot be justified in the absence of mens rea. 4. Government accordingly allow the petitioner s plea and remit the penalty.
-
1980 (2) TMI 93 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Refund - Duty adjusted in P.L.A. against cancelled gate passes - Delay in intimation ... ... ... ... ..... of the cancellation of the gate passes were not made known to the Department on the same day. Government accept the plea that it was not possible for them to intimate this fact on the next day as that was the off day of the manufacturer and that they sent the intimation at the earliest possible i.e. on the first working day following their off day. Government therefore, do not see any valid reasons why the applicant s claim for payment of duty i.e. cancelled gate passes should be rejected when it is clear case of double payment of duty. 3. Government accordingly set aside the order in appeal and allow the revision application with consequential relief to the applicant.
-
1980 (2) TMI 92 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
P.P. Caps - Tariff item 42 ... ... ... ... ..... uld appear to be that the seal or strip or any additional appendage of the cap which gives it the character of being pilfer proof once torn out could not be used again. Applying this test Government hold that the goods in question could not be considered as P.P. Caps, as contended by the party. 3. Government accordingly drop the review proceedings.
-
1980 (2) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Portable Air Compressor is a trailer classifiable under Item 34 CET ... ... ... ... ..... that the tariff description of item 34 of Central Excise Tariff as it is worded does not stipulate that the scope of the item shall be limited to only such trailers as are required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act for use on public roads. In this view of the matter Government are of the view that the goods in question have been correctly classified as a trailer and charged to duty under Tariff item 34. Government further observe that the Assistant Collector has rightly distinguished this case from that covered by the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector, Bombay, which is relied upon by the petitioners. In that case, the trailer did have any brake except parking brakes. However, in this case as shown by the literature printed by the petitioners themselves the portable air-compressors were fitted with over-run brakes. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Government uphold the correctness of the order-in-appeal and reject the revision application.
-
1980 (2) TMI 90 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Goods removed with knowledge of department - Exemption - Burden of Proof. - Ioqin tablets and ampoules
-
1980 (2) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Job work - Nylon/Rayon Tyrecord Warpsheet are not "goods" - Constitutional remedies ... ... ... ... ..... t prevent the excise authorities from charging excise duty on warpsheets and so there will be no final determination of the matter. The relief that the Respondent Company may get in respect of a particular year, is not an effective and adequate relief, for in the next year the respondent company has to again ask for refund and prefer an appeal if the application for refund is rejected. In our opinion, the contention of Mr. Jinwalla has considerable substance. There can be no dispute that unless an alternative remedy can give full and effective relief to the aggrieved party, it will not stand in the way of his moving this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the provision for refund cannot be regarded as an alternative remedy. In these circumstances, the Writ petition was quite maintainable. No other point has been argued in this appeal on behalf of either party. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss the appeal but there will be no order for costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Valuation - Duty collected in excess - Mistake of law - Duty illegally collected - Writ of mandamus - Civil Court - Jurisdiction - Limitation
-
1980 (2) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT NEW DELHI
Carpets - Suit - Cause of action - Criteria for - Illegal payment ... ... ... ... ..... serial numbers 57 to 183. The total amount of these payments comes to Rs. 5,85,932.08 subject to any mistake in arithmetical calculations. The suit is within time only for this amount. The amount of payments up to serial numbers 1 to 56 comes to Rs. 1,45,221/- recovery of which is barred by time. 7. On merits, in view of the order passed by the Central Government is revision in favour of the plaintiff as also in view of the Supreme Court decision, in Union of India v. Gujarat Woollen Felt Mills - 1977 E.L.T. (J 24) A.I.R. 1977 SC 1548, it is clear to us that Woollen fabrics do not include the tufted carpets made by the petitioner inasmuch as they are not woven and are not a fabric. 8. The appeal is allowed. The decree of the learned Single Judge is modified to Rs. 5,85,932.08 and the suit in respect of the other amount of Rs. 1,45,221/- is dismissed. Since the appeal has succeeded mainly on the plea of limitation but not on the merits of the case, no order is made for costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Appeal - Postal authorities - General Law - Appeals and reference petitions - Distinction in presentation - Effect
-
1980 (2) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
'Paper maker's felts' are textile fabrics - Classification - Opinion of Indian Standards Institute - Significance
-
1980 (2) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Writ Jurisdiction - Reappreciation of evidence - Criteria for ... ... ... ... ..... oubt true that the permit had been granted on the basis of the representation that the goods were to be transported from the petiti-oner s warehouse at Mattancherry to the warehouse of two other persons at Kayamkulam and Quilon respectively. Even if it is to be assumed for the purpose of discussion that the petitioner had deliberately failed to carry out the obligation for re-warehousing the goods in the warehouses of the two other persons at Kayamkulam and Quilon, that will not convert the removal into one made otherwise than as provided by these rules . Hence, we hold, with respect, that the learned Judge was fully right in holding that the Collector had acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 2,000/on the ground of contravention of Rule 151(c). The contention of the Central Government Pleader in this regard will accordingly stand rejected. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
1980 (2) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Stock taking not illegal even if Collector's sanction not obtained - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... at he was correct in his conclusion. The observations of the Division Bench were made in a writ appeal which was not concerned with the supply of copies at all, but was concerned with the complaint that the Central Board of Revenue, erroneously rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant therein on the ground that such an appeal was not maintainable and the prayer of the appellant therein was to quash that order and direct the Central Board of Revenue to re-entertain the appeal and dispose it of on merits. We agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge not merely because the appellant had signed the weighment sheets prepared at the time of the special inspection but in the affidavit filed by the appellant in his earliest writ petition he had not questioned the correctness of the weighment and the existence of the shortages and only contended that he was not responsible for the shortages. Therefore, this point also fails and hence the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1980 (2) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Valuation - Cost of packing of cement in gunny bags ... ... ... ... ..... ce does not lie in directing refund of that amount to the petitioners from the Government. 11. The petitions are allowed. We declare that for the period from 1st October 1975 to 8th January 1976 the cost of packing was not includible in the value of cement for purposes of excise duty. The petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 363 of 1976 is entitled to the refund of the duty paid on the cost of packing for the period from 1st November 1975 to 8th January 1976 from the respondents and any demand for such duty for the period from 1st October 1975 to 31st October 1975 is quashed. In Misc. Petition No. 704 of 1976 the petitioner is entitled to refund of duty paid on the cost of packing for the period from 30th October 1975 to 8th January 1976. The demand for duty on the cost of packing for the period from 1st October 1975 to 29th October 1975 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs of both the petitions. The security amount in both the petitions be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1980 (2) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Tyres and fork-lift trucks - Classification - Refund - `Error' - Connotation of - Mistake of law - Discovery of - Limitation - Writ Jurisdiction - Discretion -Alternative remedy - Date of knowledge
-
1980 (2) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Acrylic sheets manufactured from Methyl Methacrylate Monomer - Liability to countervailing duty - Refunds - Writ of mandamus - Scope
-
1980 (2) TMI 79 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Excess production scheme - Computation of base period ... ... ... ... ..... Government observe that para 1(b) of the said notification where in it is stated that clearances of any specified goods exempted from the whole of the duty leviable thereon in any financial year should not be taken into account, refers to the excess clearance for the purpose of granting the exemption under this notification and not to the determination of the base period under para 2. The plain meaning of para 2 of Notification No. 198/76 C.E. does not warrant the interpretation put on it by the petitioners. The very fact that even goods cleared without payment of Central Excise duty as goods cleared for export without payment of Central Excise duty are to be taken into account for the purposes of computing the excess production in a financial year vis-a-vis the production in the base period negatives the petitioners contention. 4. In view of the above the order-in-appeal which is correct in law does not warrant interference. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (2) TMI 78 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Sugar excess production rebate - Sugar incentive scheme - Procedure for grant of ... ... ... ... ..... ference to the average production only. Otherwise, the wording of the sub-serial numbers (a) to (c) would have been different. 4. Apparently the confusion has arisen in this case because of the procedure adopted for grant of rebate under the notification. As per the procedure in force the quantity of rebate that is admissible as per the notification on the quantity of excess production is given in advance by way of credit in the petitioners Personal Ledger Account i.e., credit is given even before the sugar is cleared. But the notification has to be read independently of the procedure and as stated in the preceding paragraph the wording of the notification is quite clear and the various percentages specified therein have relation only to the average production inasmuch as total excess production is known only at the end of the season whereas relief becomes due as soon as clearance start exceeding the average production. The two revision applications are accordingly rejected.
....
|
