|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 236 Records
-
1981 (1) TMI 275 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d question need not be answered. However, even if Question No. 1 was answered in affirmative this question still has to be answered in the negative because the finding of the Tribunal regarding the nature of the gifts could be sustained on the other reasons given for disbelieving the genuineness of the alleged gifts. As found by the Tribunal, Sampuran Singh was totally a stranger to the assessee and there was no reason why he should make a gift of ₹ 10,000 to him. Boota Ram, though, was brother of the wife of the assessee but he had four sisters and no reason was forthcoming as to why he gave a gift of ₹ 10,000 to the assessee alone particularly when there was no occasion to do so. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the genuineness of the gifts for valid reason and even if the two donors are found to be men of means this finding could not be vitiated on that ground. Question No. 2 is answered accordingly against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No costs.
-
1981 (1) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1974; but the Order dated September 11, 1973 of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Saheb Ganj, taking cognizance of a case instituted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka, for offences under Section 409, Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 16 of the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Ordinance (46 of 1973) was not quashed. The main contention of appellant 1, Shankar Prasad Bhagat, was that he received only 650 standard bags as against the notified estimated 1500 bags, and the Condition 13 of the statutory Agreement under which he was required to pay for the undelivered or unoffered quantity of the leaves was unconstitutional. Since we have held that the aforesaid Condition 13 is valid, this contention must fail. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. The case shall now go back to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate for disposal in accordance with law. We advisedly abstain from making any observation with regard to the merits of the case. Petitions and Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT
Right of a detenu under COFEPOSA Act - interview with a lawyer and the members of his family - ’preventive detention’ and punitive detention’ = right to life in detention.
-
1981 (1) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law. It has taken into particular regard a few considerations which seemed to it to assume importance. It has referred to the recovery of a bloodstained slipper and a diary from the scene of the offence, and has inferred that they belong to Ajit Singh. We are not satisfied that the connection has been truly established. The papers found in the diary do not necessarily show that the diary belongs to him. Nor is there sufficient proof that the slipper is his. The High Court has concentrated on some of the material only, omitting to consider in the process that the integrality of the evidence alone can ensure whether the accused are guilty. We are satisfied that the High Court erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court set aside and the judgment and order of the trial court restored. These are the reasons which persuaded us to make the order disposing of the appeal. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tention pari passu the order of detention, etc. etc.) or, at any rate, an explanation from the authorities concern- ed must be called for by the Central Government so that in future persons against whom serious acts of smuggling are alleged, do not go scot free. In the instant case, not only were the documents and materials not supplied along with the order of detention, but there has been a delay of about 25 days in disposing of the representation of the detenu and no explanation for the same has been given. These are matters which must be closely examined by the Government. For the reasons given above, we hold that the continued detention of the detenu is void. We allow the petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Home Ministers of all the State Governments, Hon’ble the Home Minister of the Government of India and also the Hon’ble Finance Minister, Government of India for necessary action. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 270 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ed for duty are two different matters. Govt. have already held in para 3 above as also in the case of M/s. Near East Trading Company on their revision application vide Order in F. No. 195/B/5/61/76-CX. V that the goods were not eligible for benefit of Notification 80/69 and that these therefore attracted duty. Having done that Govt. nevertheless observe that a demand even in terms of Rule 173Q ought to have been preceded by a proper show cause notice and compliance with the principles of natural justice. Since no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners as to why the duty should not be demanded on the 8 cases Govt. set aside the order in appeal on the question of demand for duty with liberty to the competent original authority to go into this question of demand for duty afresh after due compliance with the principles of natural justice which will naturally include issue of proper show cause notice to the petitioner. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 269 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ification exempting soap in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process had been carried out with the aid of power hold that the use of power was with reference to the manufacture of soap only and not to the use of power in the manufacture of raw materials by which soap was manufactured. Referring to this judgment they have stated that in their case also it is not disputed that no power was used by them in their factory and, therefore, the goods should got the benefit of notification No. 170/77. 4. Government find considerable force in the assessee’s contentions. Government observe that the facts on records do not establish that the components could be said to have been manufactured on behalf of the assessee. Further since no power was used by the assessee in the manufacture of finished goods the assessee could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 179/77 when necessary conditions are satisfied. Government accordingly drop the review proceedings.
-
1981 (1) TMI 268 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ady taken up the question of setting off of the duty paid at Dehra Dun. Government direct that the Collector may take up that matter after proper identification of the consignments cleared from Salem, with the concerned authorities at Saharanpur and Salem respectively. As for the duty demanded for the period prior to April, 1976, Government observe that is considerable force in the petitioners’ contention that Rule 9(2) is not applicable because the authorities below have stated that mala fides are absent in this case. Government, therefore, held that any demand of duty from the petitioners on clearances prior to April, 1976 is time-barred.
-
1981 (1) TMI 267 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... rightly assessed as processed fabrics, others, and that tariff values were applicable only to a factory other than a composite mill and accordingly rejected the representation. At the appeal stage, the Deputy Collector observed that the impugned woollen felts would not be covered by Sr. No. (1) under the head ‘processed fabrics’ given in the table attached to Notification No. 50/62 as the impugned goods were not woven and the factory was not other than a composite mill and therefore rejected their appeal. 3. The Government observe that the records of the case reveal that spinning and weaving were not carried out by the petitioners’ factory and therefore the petitioner’s unit was not a composite mill. The Government further observe that the felt in question was not a woven product so as to be treated as woollen fabrics. 4. In the circumstances, the Government set aside the orders of the Appellate Collector and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (1) TMI 266 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ered by one of the remaining Items falling in the Schedule annexed to the notification, but this has not been done, nor are the party able to show as to which Item of the Schedule annexed to the notification corresponds to the goods in question. Assuming, though not admitting, that ‘lake colours’ are comparatively more costlier then lime colours because the party have not conclusively established this point of comparative price difference. Government observe that this fact would still not come to the party’s rescue because they have not produced any technical authorities to show how lime colour could get the benefit of Notification No. 23/55. 7. Having regard to forgoing the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Section 36(2) not aside the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and restore the order-in-original dated 25-3-1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad.
-
1981 (1) TMI 265 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... that under circumstances it would not be correct to say that the assessees had made any wilful misrepresentation and suppressed facts as alleged in the show cause notice for review. It was his contention that under the circumstances of the case Rule 9(2) was clearly not applicable and the Appellate Collector was justified in holding that only Rule 10 was applicable for recovery of duty. In this connection he relied upon the judgments reported in 1980 E.L.T. (J 99) and 1980 E.L.T. (J 625). 3. Government find considerable force in the submissions of the assessees. The fact that they had filed a classification list wherein they had mentioned the notification exempting yarn contained in chindies from paying duty would establish the bona fides of the assessees. The circumstances of the clearances having been fully brought to the notice of the departmental officers Rule 9(2) was not attracted and Rule 10 was properly attracted. The review proceedings are accordingly dropped.
-
1981 (1) TMI 264 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e carburettors manufactured by them being held classifiable under Tariff Item 34A, Central Excise Tariff, they would not claim refund of the duty paid thereon in respect of these clearances where the buyers have claimed set off/proforma credit of the duty. 5. Government find considerable force in the petitioners contention that the carburettors manufactured by them are motor vehicles parts. Government accordingly hold that for the material period i.e. before Tariff Item 34A was amended in 1979 the carburetors manufactured by the petitioners are classifiable under Item 34A, Central Excise Tariff as parts of motor vehicles. Government further hold that in view of the petitioners letter dated 23-11-1980 referred to in para 4 above they would not be eligible for any refund of the duty paid on the carburettors under Tariff Item 68 in respect of these clearances where the buyers have claimed set off/proforma credit of duty. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1981 (1) TMI 263 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the price at which the goods are sold to the dealers and not to the D.G.S. and D. As regards the petitioner’s contention that the sale price of M/s. IFFCO should be made applicable in their case, the Government observe that since the petitioners own goods are available for comparison there is no point in considering the goods of other manufacturers for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the goods captively consumed by them. In the circumstances the Government observe that the order of the Asstt. Collector fixing the assessable value of the goods captively consumed as equal to the price at which the goods were sold to dealers is correct and proper and the order of the Appellate Collector interfering with the said order of the Asstt. Collector merits to be set aside. 6. The Government accordingly confirm the tentative view as expressed in the Show Cause Notice and set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Collector and restore the order of the Asstt. Collector.
-
1981 (1) TMI 262 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... nces, and could have done so on 15-1-1974 could not get the benefit because the Asstt. Collector insisted upon their filing a fresh classification list, as pointed out above. Shri Maniar stressed that the petitioners were not only entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Exemption notification with reference to the date of manufacture but also because they were unduly prevented from getting the benefit of aforesaid Exemption Notification when they wanted to clear the goods in terms of the exemption notification before the exemption was withdrawn. The procedural formality of filing a fresh classification list could not stand in the way of their claim for the benefit of the exemption notification. 4. Government accept the petitioners’ contention that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioners should not have been denied the benefit of Exemption Notification and Government accordingly allow the revision application with consequential relief to the petitioners.
-
1981 (1) TMI 261 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ctor upheld the decision of the Supdt. 3. The petitioners have contended that they are merely reconditioning the instruments which they purchased and such reconditioning would not amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They have further contended that similar goods manufactured by I.T.I. Bangalore are not charged to duty under Tariff Item 33D. It is their contention that when the standard goods manufactured by I.T.I. are not charged to duty under Tariff Item 33D, the reconditioned goods manufactured by them should not be subjected to duty under T.I. 33D. 4. Government find considerable force in the submissions more so because it is confirmed that similar standard goods manufactured by I.T.I. are not charged to duty under Tariff Item 33D. Therefore Government agree with the petitioners that the impugned goods should not be charged to duty under the item. 5. The revision application is accordingly allowed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 260 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... sed the petitioners to obtain a speaking and appealable order from the Asstt. Collector rather than prefer an appeal on the order of the Supdt. of Central Excise which was without jurisdiction. 3. In their revision application, the petitioners have apart from pleading the merits of their case, contended that the Appellate Collector should have appropriately remanded the matter to the Asstt. Collector for de novo adjudication rather than dismissed their appeal. 4. Government find considerable force in the petitioner’s argument that the proper course for the Appellate Collector should have been to remand the case to the Asstt. Collector who was the competent officer rather than dismiss the appeal out of hand. Government accordingly set aside the orders-in-appeal with the direction that the merits of the petitioner’s case shall be examined afresh by the Asstt. Collector who will decide the matter after due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
-
1981 (1) TMI 259 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... signments in routine course of business, presuming the parties to be genuine, that their goods receipt would reveal they were not supposed to be aware of the exact nature of the goods consigned, and therefore that they had not contravened Rule 52(A) of Central Excise Rules and were not hence liable to pay penalty. 4. The Government observe that the records do not indicate that the petitioners had intentionally involved themselves with the illicit dealings in the impugned goods. Furthermore, the petitioners could not have been expected to demand for Central Excise gate passes from the consignor as the alleged fictitious consignor was only a dealer and not a manufacturer as per the Bills covering the consignments which were produced by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the Government consider that the penalty imposed on the petitioners is not justified. 5. The Government, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (1) TMI 258 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... tification relating to them at the relevant time, namely, Notification No. 59-Cus., dated 20-4-1966. 60. In some of the appeals, the orders-in-original invoke sub-sections (i) and (m) of section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, in so far as they relate to concealment of good quality garments among the “rags” and difference in material particulars between the Bills of Entry declarations and the goods found during examination. 61. In view of the order already passed following the appeals and release of the consignments (on mutilation as set out in the course of this order) the charges relating to these sub-sections wherever invoked are also set aside in appeal. In any event due to efflux of time of nearly 8 to 9 years since the goods were imported, and the condition of their storage, the physical condition of the goods would have materially altered to such an extent that the charges under these two sub-sections would have been rendered as no longer relevant.
-
1981 (1) TMI 257 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... the Board by treating the Superintendent’s letter as an order of the Collector, conveyed through the Superintendent. 7. Shri D.R. Gupta, Authorised Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant at a hearing granted by the Board to them at New Delhi on 22-1-1981. 8. In reiterating the points set out in the written memorandum of appeal, Counsel quoted the judgments in the case of - 1. Anup Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad and others v. Union of India and others (delivered by the Gujarat High Court on 15/16-6-1978) 1978 E.L.T. (J 533) ; and 2. Madura Coats Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal (delivered by the Calcutta High Court on 1-9-1978 1980 E.L.T. 582 (Cal.) 9. The Board has carefully gone through the records of the case, the points set out in the written memorandum of appeal and those urged at the time of personal hearing. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the appellants and the merits of the case, the Board allows the appeal.
-
1981 (1) TMI 256 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... conclusive but the allegations against the appellants were proved. The findings of the Collector were merely based on presumptions and conjectures. 17. In the absence of any collateral and corroborative evidence, the demand of duty and penal action against the appellants was unwarranted. 18. The Board is also constrained to observe that in a case of this nature built up on unsupported statements, recorded after a long period of 1 to 2 years of the removal of the goods from the factory of the manufacturers, the imposition of massive penalty of ₹ 10 Lakhs, particularly, when the alleged evasion of differential duty was only about ₹ 30,000/ shows that the powers under Rule 173Q, were not used discriminately by the Collector, and smacks of cruelty. 19. The Board finds that the allegation against the appellants is no-established, and accordingly the orders regarding demand of duty and imposition of penalty are set aside. 20. As a result, the appeal succeeds in full.
........
|
