|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... noticed that we were told that the petitioners' permits have expired. This order is not to be interpreted or used for even remotely or indirectly suggesting that under the effect of this order or as a result of this order petitioners are entitled to renewal of their permits. The benefit of the order hereinabove made would be available, if and only if, the petitioners have valid permits for operating stage carriages and if such permits are there, they would be without restriction for operating on that part of the route of each of the petitioners which overlaps with the notified route but it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority to impose corridor restrictions. So, however, that such restriction does not suffer from the defect of discrimination which we have held by this judgment to be unconstitutional. Order accordingly. We allow the special leave petitions and the writ petitions to the extent hereinabove indicated with no order as to costs. Petitions allowed
-
1981 (3) TMI 251 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y the learned Additional Solicitor General, that in Hadibandhu's case (supra) the grounds of detention covered numerous pages and related to a long period of time and, according to this Court, contained "a complicated order". The complicated nature or the length of the document, however, was only mentioned incidentally by this Court and was not meant to be a sine qua non for the fulfilment of the requirement that the grounds must be supplied to the detenu in a language which he understood before the service on him of such grounds could be considered a communication thereof to him for the purposes of the Preventive Detention Act. 8. In the result both the petitions succeed and are accepted. The detention of each of the petitioners is held to be repugnant to the provisions of article 22(5) of the Constitution and is struck down on that account. Both of them are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, in so far as these petitions are concerned. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 250 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... member that the Act is a valuable piece of social legislation with the avowed object of ensuring equitable distribution of the land by taking away land from large tenure holders and distributing the same among landless tenants or using the same for public utility schemes which is in the larger interest of the community at large. The Act seems to implement one of the most important constitutional directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India. If in this process a few individuals suffer severe hardship that cannot be helped, for individual interests must yield to the larger interests of the community or the country as indeed every noble cause claims its martyr. As this was the only point raised before us, we find no merit in the same. For the reasons given above, we hold that the High Court was right in allowing the writ petition in respect of the gift in question. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he plaintiffs. We are afraid, these considerations cannot prevail. For all these reasons, we are constrained to hold that there was no justification for the High Court to grant a temporary injunction under o. 39 rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order passed by the High Court dated August 24, 1979 granting a temporary injunction restraining the appellant, the United Commercial Bank, from recalling ₹ 85,84,456 from the Respondent No 1, the Bank of India is set aside, and the application filed by the plaintiffs, Messrs. Godrej Soaps Ltd. for the grant of a temporary injunction under O. 39, rr.1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is rejected with a direction that the High Court shall try to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within six months from today. The costs of the appellant shall be borne by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 equally. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 248 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... that the Cess is a duty of excise and the decision by the High Court of Calcutta in the writ petition filed by the appellant on the collection of Cess on the twine captively consumed may have to be considered before deciding the question about levy of Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty on the goods in question. 9. The Board also observes that the order under appeal though it has an air of finality, is in fact a provisional order as it uses the words “only for the time being” while ordering the payment of the Central Excise duty and Special Excise duty. Such an order would not be legally sustainable as an adjudication order. 10. In the above circumstances, the Board sets aside the “Order (Original)” under appeal and remands the case to the Collector for passing a final order after taking into account the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants in the matter of levy of the Cess mentioned above.
-
1981 (3) TMI 247 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... y content as obtained by garnetting or pulling of rags, cuttings, hard wastes etc. is not less than 50 per cent, (ii) maximum virgin wool content does not exceed 5 per cent, (iii) maximum soft wool content does not exceed 15 per cent, (iv) and the total wool content is not less than 80 per cent upto 16-3-1972 and is not less then 60 per cent from 17-3-1972 onwards. So long as these four conditions are individually satisfied, the goods shall be assessed under the exemption notification irrespective of the extent to which any other fibre is used or is not used at all. 5. Government accordingly set aside the Order-in-Appeal and direct that the petitioners’ records like blending register, quality control register, test reports may be examined and goods assessed in accordance with the interpretation given in this order. After such assessment, the Collector shall determine the amount of duty that may have been lost to the Government and will then re-adjudicate the case.
-
1981 (3) TMI 246 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... nufactured by such small scale manufacturers, then there is no question of subjecting it to duty as fibre again when the mills like the present petitioner subject it to further processing. Such processing can be said to be only converting fibre into fibre. 3. Government also observe that the Woollen Mills at other places were not being charged any duty when they used such garnetted and carded materials purchased from the small scale manufacturers. 4. Accordingly,the petitioners are not liable to pay any duty and the penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods imposed on them are remitted in full. The order-in-appeal is set aside and the revision application is allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 245 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... avy material to some place and then incidentally to dump it there. The main function is transport and that is why the Dumper as a whole falls within Item 34 of the Central Excise Tariff. By its very nature, the Dumper is designed to carry heavy loads and, therefore, it has a robustly constructed steel body like it has heavy duty tyres of special extra strength. Merely because the body is tipped or tilted at the time of dumping the transported material, it does not mean that the main function of the body is that of material handling. Its main function continues to remain transport of the heavy material just as the main function of the Dumper is transport and not tipping. In these circumstances, Government do not see any reason to exclude the value of the steel body. 6. There is a penalty of ₹ 7,500/- in regard to various other irregularities noticed. Government see no reason to interfere with that order. 7. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1981 (3) TMI 244 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... ton Pump India Ltd. wherein the Appeals are allowed, set aside the orders imposing penalty under Rule 173Q when there is no intention to evade payment of duty. 3. I have considered the pleas of the appellants. On a perusal of records I find that in their reply to the show cause notice they pleaded that though the dealing assistant forgot to make debit entries for the connected G.P. 1s in the personal ledger Account he had promptly made required entries in the R.G. 1. and E.B. 4 and also in the G.P. 1s regarding amount of duty etc. This proves that the plea put forth by the appellants that the mistake was a bona fide clerical error is acceptable. However it is up to the appellants to arrange their affairs in such a way that such mistakes should not occur. However I am satisfied that in the instant case the mistake occurred is not mala fide and is without intention to evade duty. I therefore set aside the penalty imposed but request the appellants to be careful in future.
-
1981 (3) TMI 243 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... is only a matter of fact which has been already accepted by the Board as pointed out by the appellants with the help of Bangalore Collectorate’ s Trade Notice that post-drawn waste is generated only after the material which goes into the manufacture of fibre attains the necessary qualities of fibre. It has, therefore, for all purposes to be treated as fibre, but since it conforms to the category of waste, as stipulated in Notification No. 53/72-C.E., dated 17-3-1972, it was allowed to be cleared from the factory on payment of duty at concessional rates as provided for in the said notification. 12. Once it is agreed that post-drawn waste which was processed by the appellants was cleared as fibre, although on concessional rate of duty being waste, the relaxation under the Tariff Item 18B would naturally amount to double taxation which is not advisable under law. 13. The Board, therefore, agrees with the appellants contention and in doing so, allows the appeal.
-
1981 (3) TMI 242 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ffect only prospectively of his revised order and the short-levy on account of mistake should be covered by the limitation of time as provided under the provision of Rule 10. Accordingly, Government hold that the demand can be sustained only for the period 4-12-1974 to 31-7-1975. Government therefore, accept the applicants’ objections that the Rule 10A cannot be applied in the circumstances of the case because the earlier clearances were done with the approval of the proper officer. Government accordingly set aside that part of the demand which is hit by the time bar prescribed under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules as they obtained at the material time. 9. In view of the circumstances as discussed above Govt. do not find it necessary to grant any further opportunity to the applicants for a personal hearing as sought for again by the applicants. Subject to the modification of the order-in-appeal as discussed above the revision application is therefore rejected.
-
1981 (3) TMI 241 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... ducts had been sold in the market. 4. The Board is of the view that the reasoning given in the Collector’s orders for arriving at his conclusion that the appellant employed more than 49 workers is of hypothetical nature and cannot be accepted as conclusive in the absence of any clear evidence. It is also evident that most of the demand is time barred. Going by the general connotation of the expression “grain mill products” it is also very difficult to apply a restrictive meaning, to exclude the goods in question from the scope of that expression. In any case, in the absence of clear evidence that the appellants had been employing more than 49 workers during the relevant period, the question of bringing their products within the scope of Item 68 does not arise. Considering the defence arguments as a whole, it would appear to be a fit case for upholding their contention and accordingly the Collector’s orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 240 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... der the said Item. 8. The Collector’s order in this regard is therefore upheld. 9. However, having regard to the basic facts that the appellants had willingly paid the entire amount of duty as soon as they were asked to do so (although as per their opinion a part of the demand was barred by limitation), and that the Central Excise officers, who were making frequent visits to the factory did not provide the appellants sufficient guidance on the question of changed classification of Broaches, the Board holds the departmental officers as more responsible for non-collection of duty on the Broaches during the relevant period, that the Collector’s action in imposing a penalty on the appellants. 10. The Board accordingly feels that the penalty was unwarranted and orders that it be set aside. 11. While ordering this remission, the Board has kept in mind that the appellants had not agitated the issue of limitation under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules.
-
1981 (3) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from Delhi at Delhi, then of course, they would not be inter-State sales. For the purpose of clarifying this point, the answer to the second question becomes very material. In our view, the proper course in this case was for the notified authority to accept the forms as originally filed and, at the most call upon the assessee to show that there were in fact inter-State sales involved which could be done by obtaining certificates from the purchaser. The answers to the questions referred to us can, therefore, be summarised as follows. In answer to the first and second questions, we would answer the same in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. We would answer the third question also in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the department, but with the qualification that the department could call upon the assessee to show that the sales in question were inter-State sales. We would award costs to the petitioner. Counsel s fee Rs. 550.
-
1981 (3) TMI 238 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Act, I should also hold respectfully agreeing with the view of the learned single judge that the sugar includes as it occurs in the Fifth Schedule of entry 31-B of the Act, all types of sugar which is not jaggery. I have also pointed out earlier that the charging section itself makes only distinction between manufacturers of jaggery and others. If we give the word sugar occurring in the notification as a prefix to factory, its widest meaning, then sugar factory must include factories which manufacture all types of sugar. Therefore, there is no justification for the respondents to deny the exemption claimed under the notification by the petitioner. 7.. The petition is therefore allowed. Rule is made absolute. A mandamus will issue to the respondents directing them to forbear from collecting purchase tax from the petitioner for the months of May and June, 1978, the period of exemption given under the notification. 8.. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.
-
1981 (3) TMI 237 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State Government, as no question of reimbursement arises in the absence of any liability to tax under section 98A of the Act on the sales effected by the State Government prior to 24th December, 1975. Therefore, the contention urged for the State in this behalf must fail. 31.. In the result, we make the following order (i) W.P. Nos. 16614 to 16631 of 1979.-Rule discharged. Petitions dismissed. No costs. (ii) W.P. Nos. 5375 to 5377 and 8579 of 1976.-Writ petitions partly allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue to the respondents not to collect any forest development tax under section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, in respect of sales under contracts which are the subject-matters of these writ petitions and to refund, if any tax has already been collected from any of the petitioners. No costs. The Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance in Writ Petitions Nos. 16614 to 16631 of 1979 within two weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.
-
1981 (3) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs as he may think fit . A similar residuary power though not found in section 31 of the Income-tax Act, the Supreme Court considered and held that even orders which have no bearing on the merits of the assessment would come within the provisions of section 31(3) of the Income-tax Act. The provisions in section 31(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which confer also a residuary power should therefore be considered as a fortiori case. We are therefore of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court is thus conclusive on all the points raised in these tax revision cases and, accordingly, we hold that the appeals before the Tribunal against the orders refusing to condone the delay in presentation of the appeals and also against orders refusing to condone the delay in representation are appealable (sic) under section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. These tax revision cases are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 235 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t into effect by necessary notification as required under the Ordinance, has been overcome by this Ordinance and the respective Ordinances by this Ordinance have been brought into operation from the dates of their publication in the official Gazette. The contention of Mr. Shrinath Singh that it does not has no substance in view of the deeming provision of this new Ordinance, which brings the earlier Ordinances also into operation and makes the action taken under those Ordinances as if the present Ordinance was in operation on those dates. This in a way also supports the view I have taken earlier that the legislative intent was never to permanently repeal the 1959 Act. The repeal was intended only during the period that an Ordinance was in force and its provisions operative. 28.. All the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having been rejected, the application is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, without costs. SAHAY, J.-I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 234 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re not supposed to issue a bill. But, nothing prevents the commission agents from preparing bills themselves and obtain the signatures of the agriculturists/sellers and enter that bill number in form No. 14. Similarly, so far as item No. 12 is concerned, it has been argued that the owner of the goods, viz., the agriculturist, will not be in the market yard to sign the delivery note or the bill of lading. According to item No. 12, the owner of the goods or his agent or manager can also sign the delivery note. The petitioners themselves acknowledge that they are the commission agents and, therefore, they can also sign in that coloumn as agents of the agriculturists/sellers. 8.. I am of the view that there is no legal infirmity of the type pointed out by the learned counsel which calls for striking down rule 27(1) of the Rules. The petition is also misconceived and, in my opinion, it is frivolous. 9.. Therefore, the petition is rejected without issuing rule. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 233 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent proceeding to assess an item of turnover, which had been omitted to be taxed earlier for any reason and that it will include a power to reassess a turnover even though in the return that turnover was included and the officer then thought that it was exempt. This decision was cited and followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Surya Fertilisers and Chemicals v. State of Tamil Nadu 1977 40 STC 538, wherein also it was held that section 16 will apply even to a turnover which was originally considered by the assessing authority, who, after applying his mind to the turnover, has held that the turnover, for some reason or other, was exempt from tax or was not includible in the taxable turnover. In the result, all the three contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee are not acceptable and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent will be entitled to its costs Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
........
|
