|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 250
... ...
... ... ..... same time the accused cannot be set at liberty taking into consideration the gravity of the offences which he is alleged to have committed and with which he have been charged by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, he is to be tried over again in accordance with law. 6. In the result, we reject the reference and allow the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the accused-appellant and direct that the Sessions case be transferred to the file of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, in exercise of our powers under S. 407 of the Criminal P.C. At the same time, we allow liberty to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore City, either to try the case himself and dispose it of according to law, or make over the case to any of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judges, in exercise of the powers vested in him by S. 194 of the Cr.P.C. 7. Order accordingly.
-
1981 (7) TMI 249
... ...
... ... ..... e will release them on bail on condition that within two weeks of such release they would surrender themselves before the appropriate Court in connection with the aforesaid case. 8. In re pulak Kanti Guha v. State After hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the statements made in the application and the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that in the event of the petitioners being arrested in connection with Case No. 190 of 1981 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, Under Sections 420/468/471/472 and 120B of the I. P- C. they will be produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate within whose jurisdiction they are arrested and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate will release them on bail on condition that within two weeks of such release they would surrender themselves before the appropriate Court in connection with the aforesaid case. N.G. Chaudhuri, J. 9. I agree.
-
1981 (7) TMI 248
... ...
... ... ..... e scheme for interest-free sales tax loan to the first petitioner firm so far as its cotton delinting plant is concerned. We therefore hold that the resolution of Sept. 26, 1979, in so far as it purports to take away the benefits of interest-free sales tax loan from the petitioners, is not applicable in the case of the petitioners and cannot be allowed to apply as against the petitioners. That resolution is Annexure 'H' to the petition.1 This special civil application is tberefore allowed and the respondents are directed not to apply the impugned resolutions dated September 26, 1979 and Feb. 27, 1980 to the interest-free sales tax loans, for which the petitioners are eligible for a period of five years from Nov. 1, 1977 in respect of their cotton delinting plant The special civil application is allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to that "tent. The respondants must pay the costs of this special civil application to the petitioners. 9. Application allowed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 247
... ...
... ... ..... AC has allowed deduction at 100 for a book of ₹ 156 whereas in respect of the balance he has allowed only 10 depreciation. This is not one book, they are in 10 volumes. Even the particulars, supplied by the assessee have not been gone into by the ACC. In these circumstances we accept in to the arguments on behalf of the assessee that each book is separate plant though collectively they might have been named by the publishers under the same name. Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology is published in 24 volumes. Fatty Acids in 5 volumes, Advances in Lipid Research might have been in 14 volumes and so on and so forth. In our opinion, in respect of each of these books the assessee will be eligible for full deduction in respect of the value of each book under the first proviso to s.32 (1) (ii) of the IT Act. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed. P.S. Dhillon, J.M.- I agree with the conclusion of my ld. brother Shri D.V. Junnarkar, the Id. Accountant Member.
-
1981 (7) TMI 246
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal without assigning reasons. If we would have had the benefit of the view of the learned Judge of the High Court who refused to grant leave on the question as to how he came to the conclusion that the transfer of the charge by making necessary entry in the cash book of cash handed over to the accused does not constitute entrustment, we would certainly have been able to examine the correctness of the view. This point would require fuller arguments. Neither directly or indirectly we propose to express any opinion on this important point save and except that the point raised by the appellant did require examination by the High Court. It would be for the benefit of this Court that a speaking judgment is given. 3. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court refusing to grant leave to appeal and direct the High Court to restore the appeal on its file. The High Court will dispose of the appeal after hearing both sides within three months from today.
-
1981 (7) TMI 245
... ...
... ... ..... mistake and was later rectified by making suitable corrections. It was contended that the discovery of the mistake and its rectification was after the Advisory Board had submitted its report, though the detenu had even earlier, raised the question that it was the Government and not the Assistant Secretary that could claim privilege. It was not brought to the notice of the Advisory Board at any time that the mistake was only clerical. We have the least hesitation in rejecting the contention. The mistake is so obviously clerical that we cannot permit the detenu to take advantage of it. In the result W.P. No. 2690/81 is dismissed. The first two questions raised in the previous Writ Petition are common to Writ Petition No. 3241 of 1981 also. An additional point was sought to be raised that the copy of a certain document was not supplied to the detenu but after verification the point was abandoned by the learned counsel. This Writ Petition is also dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 244
... ...
... ... ..... ing charges and sorting/servicing charges from their customers. The Appellate Collector held that the loading charges and sorting/servicing charges were in the nature of post-manufacturing expenses and should therefore not form a part of the assessable value of the glass bottles. Government are unable to accept this view. Government observe that the loading and sorting/servicing charges are in the nature of charges which had to be incurred before delivery of the goods and therefore the charges should rightly form a part of the assessable value. 3. In view of the above Government in exercise of the powers vested in them under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 modify the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 192/80, dated 6-2-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay and hold that the loading charges and sorting/servicing charges recovered by the assessee from their customers should form a part of the assessable value of impugned goods.
-
1981 (7) TMI 243
... ...
... ... ..... ed at the spindle point. The object of his drawing attention to the particular show cause notice was that the lower authorities should consistently follow one principle and not demand duty from them in the particular case at a point of clearance other than the spindle point, when in all others they are going by the stage and form of clearance at the spindle point. 3. Government see considerable force in the petitioners’ contention. Government have already taken a view in the Orders in Revision No.- 720-722/80, dated 26-7-1980 to the effect that in the cases where goods are used for captive consumption and are not cleared in sized form from the spindle point, there should be no question of including the weight of the sizing material for purposes of levy of duty and that, therefore, it is the weight of the unsized yarn which should properly form the basis of levy of duty. 4. Government accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (7) TMI 242
... ...
... ... ..... e of the petitioners’ argument. On the advocate’s own admission if one were to go and ask the dealers in trade for writing and printing paper, the customer would never be given tracing paper by the dealer concerned. Government think that clinches the issue. The test laid down by the Supreme Court for the classification of the impugned goods in the trade is how the particular item is known in the trade parlance and that is how it should be classified for purposes of levy of Central Excise duty. Since in the particular case it is not known to the trade as a variety of printing and writing paper, the mere fact that it may occasionally be used or is capable of being used as writing paper would not put it in the category of writing and printing paper for purposes of Central Excise classification. Government, therefore, do not see any warrant for interference with the order in appeal which is well reasoned and speaking. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1981 (7) TMI 241
... ...
... ... ..... of similar goods, wherever available which should be taken for assessment after giving proper opportunity to the applicants and after giving due allowance to the applicants’ products vis-a-vis the value of the comparable products, as provided in sub-Clause (i) of Clause (b) of Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975. It is only where prices of comparable goods are not available that the assessable value should be arrived at on the basis of costing date as provided under sub-clause (ii) ibid. But here again, the costing data should be duly verified by the Superintendent and the applicants should be given an opportunity to explain if any changes are to be made by way of additions to the costing data or additions to the margin of profits etc., before the matter is finalised. 4. Government accordingly set aside both the orders in appeal and in original and remand the case to the Asstt. Collector to redecide the case according to the direction given above.
-
1981 (7) TMI 240
... ...
... ... ..... Editor’s Comments Since under Section 4, the assessable value is to be the price, which the excisable goods can fetch in wholesale trade at the time and place of removal, therefore, for the purpose of determination of assessable value under Rule 6(b) of C.E. (Valuation) Rules, the difference of size and type between the units producing goods under assessment and the comparable goods cannot be ignored. The reasoning given by the Government of India, that to establish the comparability of the goods, mere similarity of use is sufficient is not correct, for instance a pair of footwear produced by a small scale unit can never fetch the same price as that produced by BATA, even though the kind, quality and use of both of them may be identical. Therefore, while determining the comparability of goods, size and type of unit cannot be ignored and suitable adjustment on that account should be made as permissible under the proviso to Rule 6(b) of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules.
-
1981 (7) TMI 239
... ...
... ... ..... ise and Customs at Surat and others v. Shri J.C. Shah, M/s. Jayanti Lal and Babubhal and others and Munishanker Magat Ram and others, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 317) and that by the very difference in the constitution of the applicants firm and the other partnership firm the two had to be treated as two different legal entities. Therefore he argued that even if for the sake of arguments it was assumed that majority of the sales, say upto 80% or so were made by the Applicants’ firm to M/s. Bharat Associated Industry, the assessable value could not be any different from the invoice value because the price at which the goods were sold to M/s. Bharat Associated Industry was no different from the prices at which these goods were sold to other buyers. 4. Government see considerable force in the applicants’ above arguments and accordingly accept the submissions made by them. Government therefore set aside the impugned order in appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1981 (7) TMI 238
... ...
... ... ..... nts had made detailed submissions on the question of non-excisability of several Items included in the list of excisable items, but the Collector has not passed his order on any of these submissions. 23. The Board directs that the Collector should, therefore, in consequence to this order-in-appeal consider all these submissions and decide the excisability and consequential dutiability of all such goods keeping in view the ‘time bar aspect’ under Rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules . 24. The Board also holds that there was no clandestine manufacture or removal as the appellants had disclosed all the relevant information to the Department, as already discussed in this Order. Further, the contraventions listed in Para 8(i), (ii) and (iii) of this Order are minor in nature and therefore there was no sufficient case or cause for any penal action against the appellants. 25. The penalty imposed by the Collector is therefore, ordered to be remitted in full.
-
1981 (7) TMI 237
... ...
... ... ..... re firmly affixed to the ground and normally are not intended to be moved. Further they are not intended for sale even though there may be cases of transfer of ownership or even dismantling and sale. Accordingly, these may not merit to be called goods’. In view of the above discussions, the seized goods valued at ₹ 77,108 are liable to be confiscated under Rule 173Q, as the goods were released provisionally to the owner before adjudication, I appropriate an amount of ₹ 6,168.64 towards duty and impose a redemption fine of ₹ 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) which may be paid or appropriated forthwith. I also impose a penalty of ₹ 3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on M/s. Chemical Vessels Fabricators (P) Ltd., Faridabad. I however order that no case for charging duty on installation and assembly of components, in the present case, has been substantiated and charges to that extent are dropped.
-
1981 (7) TMI 236
... ...
... ... ..... regards the possibility of interchangeability referred to by the Assistant Collector, the catalogue from the manufacturer does indicate interchangeability, but only as between one type of doll and another and not the otherwise. In this context, the opinion expressed by the Central Scientific Instruments Organisation that talking movement cannot be used in any electronic equipment except dolls or toys etc. The evidence produced in this regard has not been found unacceptable for any reasons questioning the soundness of the opinions given by the technical authorities. In view of the technical opinion from the DGTD and other agencies and the catalogue and the literature produced, the contentions of the appellant that the mechanism under import is a component sound device for the crying dolls manufactured by them with such devices and that these are covered by Appendix 10(1) of the Import Policy 81-82 is accepted and the Assistant Collector’s order is accordingly set aside.
-
1981 (7) TMI 235
... ...
... ... ..... of admixture of zinc was 37%) and he made the Appellate order No. 1646/79, dated 31-10-1979 accordingly. This order, which was followed in the subsequent appeal, having identical issue, was considered for review by the Central Govt. and it held than the above mentioned order-in appeal was correct in law and did not require any revision. The Govt. further observed that Notification No. 119/66 does not state that the concession would be available when Copper and Copper Alloys are manufactured exclusively or entirely’ out of the material specified in the Notification. It also referred to the Supreme Court’s Judgment in case of G.O.I. v. TISCO. Presumably as reported in 1977 E.L.T. (J 61) SC where it was held that in the absence of expression Only’, Exclusively’ or entirely’ exemption under Notification No. 30/60-CE, dated 1-3-1960 was available. 5. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned orders and allow all the 15 appeals.
-
1981 (7) TMI 234
... ...
... ... ..... olic liquors and not only potable liquors, inasmuch as Item 22(5)(c) refers to Perfumed spirits. The fallacy of Mr. Advani’s contention is to be found from the very heading under which Item 22 stands, viz. “Food Preparing Industries; Beverages, Alcoholic Liquors and Vinegars; Tobacco". Apart from the description of the spirits in Item 22(4), the very heading of Item 22 is a clear indication that it is intended to cover potable spirits and not a chemical like N-Propyl Alcohol which is an organic solvent and a denaturing agent. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned notice of demand dated 22nd December, 1973 and the impugned orders dated 30th September, 1975, 24th March, 1976 and 15th April, 1977 are set aside. Rule is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. 12. I am informed that since 6th March, 1976, the department has sealed the imported goods in the petitioner’s factory. The seals shall be removed forthwith.
-
1981 (7) TMI 233
... ...
... ... ..... rimary gold converted out of foreign origin gold; (e) At the time of the seizure of the currency, Damodar Prasad had clearly admitted that he had ‘no account’ in respect of the same; (f) “Last of all, it is impossible to believe that a person dealing in gold shall keep such a huge amount of money in his house and not in a bank for safe custody, unless the money so acquired was not through legal means’. 7. The Board observes that none of these pieces of evidence, viewed individually or together would go to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the currency in question was the sale proceeds of any smuggled gold. The order of the Collector in this respect is, therefore, based on “finding” that cannot stand the light of a searching scrutiny. 8. The board hold that in these circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and in extending it allows the appeal and sets aside the confiscation of the Indian currency in question.
-
1981 (7) TMI 232
... ...
... ... ..... een denied the benefit of notification No. 82/74, dated 1-5-1974. I observe that the issue as to whether the benefit of the above exemption is available in case of such arrangement between the manufacturers and owner of trade mark has already been decided by the Govt. of India in the case of M/s Surat Bottling Co. Ltd., Surat (Order No. 404 of 1980) issued vide F. No. 198/4/180/72-CXV, dated 15-4-1980. In view of the above, I set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bikaner and accept the appeal.
-
1981 (7) TMI 231
... ...
... ... ..... d of his rights in the land, in derogation of the provisions of law, is sufficient to establish that the illegal sale has caused substantial or manifest injustice to him. The petitioner was undoubtedly entitled to hold the agricultural land until the same was sold in accordance with the provisions of law by a competent authority or person, as specified in section 239 of the Act. I am, therefore, unable to agree that no substantial injury has been caused to the petitioner by the illegal sale of the tenancy rights in agricultural land, conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The proceedings for sale of the petitioner s right in agricultural land referred to above are quashed. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Hanumangarh, shall be at liberty to resell the petitioner s rights in the agricultural land in question, in accordance with law, for the realisation of the dues outstanding against him relating to arrears of sales tax.
........
|
