|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 318 Records
-
1984 (3) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndustrial employees i.e. were not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the first place, the contention depends upon the appreciation of evidence led by the parties on the nature of duties and functions performed by the concerned respondents and it was on an appreciation the entire material that the Labour Court recorded a finding that having regard to the nature of their duties and functions all respondents, other than those who were holding the post of Senior Supervisors and Supervisors, were industrial employees, i.e. workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is not possible for this Court to interfere with such a finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. Even otherwise after considering some of the important material on record through which we were taken by counsel for the appellants, we are satisfied that the Labour Court's finding is correct. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... anded the matter to the trial court for examining this point and the trial court has returned a finding, basing its decision on the report of the Commissioner appointed for the Purpose, that the entire building constituted one single unit. It is, therefore, manifest that if the entire building was one unit and the appellant being in occupation of a portion of the same, she is entitled to get release of the other portion also. In view of our decision in civil appeal No. 379 of 1980, the appeal is allowed and we order release of the entire portion in favour of the appellant. Time is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises on or before 31st October 1984, subject to the usual undertaking being given and filed within four weeks from today, failing which the grant of time shall stand revoked without further reference to the Bench. There will be no order as to costs. Let a certified copy of this judgment be placed on the file of civil appeal No.41 of 1979. Appeals allowed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 421 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sioner that the application made by Messrs Chingleput Bottlers was not made bona fide on their own account but as benanmi for others is a finding based on appreciation A of evidence. The Commissioner was entitled to rely upon the facts found by the Collector. It may be pointed out that the Collector's report is entirely based on the statement of V. Ramabadran, managing partner of Messrs Chingleput Bottlers. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the appeal preferred by Messrs Chingleput Bottlers. In the result, the appeal preferred by the State Government must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court for the issue of a writ or mandamus directing the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Madras is set aside and the case is demanded to the Commissioner for a decision afresh according to law. For the reasons stated, the appeal filed by Messrs Chingleput Bottlers must fail and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n holding that in directing the accused by his said Order dated May 20, 1972, the Magistrate acted beyond the scope of Section 73 or in a manner which was not legal. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restore the order dated May 20, 1972, of the Magistrate who may now repeat his direction to the accused to write down the sample writing. If the accused refuses to comply with the direction, it will be open to the Court concerned to draw under Section 114, Evidence Act, such adverse presumption as may be appropriate in the circumstances. If the accused complies with the direction, the Court will in accordance with its order dated May 20, 1972, send the writing so obtained, to a senior Government Expert of Questioned Documents, named by it, for comparison with the disputed writing and then examine him as a Court witness. Since the case is very old, further proceedings in the case shall be taken with utmost expedition. Appeal allowed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. The operation of the scheme has been restrained by the order passed as inter in order in these cases. The impugned scheme is therefore quashed, and will not be given effect to. The parties will be at liberty to adjust their rights as if the scheme had not been framed. The application for intervention is allowed. Let appropriate writs be issued quashing the scheme of 1980. This, however, will not prevent the Government, if it so advised, to frame any appropriate legislation or make any appropriate amendment giving power to Central Government to frame any scheme as it considers fit and proper. In the facts and circumstances of these cases and specially in view of the fact that petitioners had themselves at one point of time wanted that new scheme be framed by the Central Government, we direct that parties will pay and bear their own costs in all these matters. The rules are made absolute to the extent indicated above.
-
1984 (3) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... valuation of the rupee. Further in our opinion, the company declined to meet its obligation on an utterly unreasonable stand and denied to the plaintiff or a period of a quarter of a century what the plaintiff was legitimately entitled without the slightest shadow of doubt. Therefore, while allowing the appeal in order to compensate the loss suffered by the plaintiff who died before enjoying the fruits of his decree, we direct that the interest shall be paid at 15% per annum and full costs throughout. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside and the decree of the trial court is restored with this modification that the interest shall be paid on the principal amount of ₹ 14,040 at 15% from 1.7.1959 till payment and full costs throughout be paid to the plaintiff. The costs plaintiff in this Court is quantified at ₹ 5,000. The payment shall be made within a period of two months from today. Appeal allowed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 417 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... by itself. It is pertinently pointed out by the learned counsel for appellants that the demand was for the period 1-3-1975 to 31-7-1976. When the basis of the classification has been set aside, the consequential demand raised cannot be sustained. It is also important to note that the classification lists for the period 1-3-1975 to 31-7-1976 were accepted by the department. The order of the Assistant Collector dated 4-12-1976 is therefore not valid. The Appellate Collector cannot sit in judgment or revise the orders of another Appellate Collector regarding the same matter in issue. In view of this finding the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We are not giving any finding as to the nature of the activity carried on by the appellants, as it is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to canvas the merits of such a contention. In view of our finding as to the sustainability of the impugned order, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the authorities below.
-
1984 (3) TMI 416 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tly been adverted to by the Appellate Board, Under the criminal law, this Court is empowered to set aside acquittal and order re-trial. On that parity exercising powers under Section 54 of the Act, the appeal is accepted and it is ordered that the matter be retried. 6. Since no one is present on behalf of the respondents in this Court nor the whole record relating to the case has been sent to this Court, it will be in the fitness of things in the interest of justice that the case is retried after notice to Harnam Dass respondent, keeping in view the said statement made by him. From the two orders passed by the authorities below, I find that no reference has been made to that statement. In this view of the matter, both the orders are set aside and the case is sent back to the Additional Director, Enforcement, i.e. the adjudicating officer, for re-trial and decision afresh after hearing both the parties. The record of the case summoned earlier be sent back forthwith. No costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 415 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Superintendent of Central Excise. We are, therefore, of the clear view that some of the concepts germane to valuation under Section 4(a) of the Act cannot be imported into the exemption notification because this would enlarge the scope of invoice price basis which permits deduction of only two elements, namely, excise duty and local taxes, if any. 6. The learned Representative of the respondent has submitted that even if for the sake of the argument the submission of the learned Counsel were accepted, the element of secondary packing (which is subject matter of dispute in the present case), cannot be excluded from the assessable value as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) . We do not think it necessary to go into this aspect of the matter as the appeal fails on the ground of interpretation and application of Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. 7. In the result we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1984 (3) TMI 414 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... No. 7/80 does not say that if they obtained proforma credit under Notification No. 201/79, it would not be applicable to the manufacturer. Here is where the notice issuer should have explained his process of reasoning. It is not enough to assume that the notice receiver will read his mind and know what he means by the notice; he must be told as clearly as possible by the Central Excise why he was considered disentitled to the exemption. 6. A minor point of the show cause notice is that it is dated 4/2 by the Supdt., who signs at the end of the notice and dates his signature 3/2. We do not know the year of the notice, the notice issuing people thought it too much trouble to date the notice properly with the date, the month and year. We find too many faults have afflicted the show cause notice and we must not allow this piece of document to be the base for an important action like recovering duty from an assessee. We set it aside and with it all the actions based upon it.
-
1984 (3) TMI 413 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... inion of the Collector, not less than the amount of duty originally paid upon them at the time of their clearance from the factory. (4) The Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the provisions of this rule for the purpose of admitting a claim for refund." A simple perusal of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 173L shows that the information of re-entry of excisable goods into the factory to the proper officer in writing in the proper form has to be made within 24 hours of such entry. The argument of the learned Counsel, Shri K.P. Bhattacherjee that the respondent had sent necessary intimation within 72 hours is not tenable since destruction is not covered under rule 173L and there is no other corresponding provision under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. I accept the appeal filed by the Revenue and quash the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). In the result, the appeal is accepted.
-
1984 (3) TMI 412 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nt argued that the Collector should have reviewed the Asstt. Collector’s order under his power under Section 35A. We cannot see the merits of this argument. A demand was issued for duty thought to have been short levied. That demand was confirmed by a process we can find no fault with. We reject this contention. 27. It came up during arguments that the Asstt. Collector wrote a number of letters that some classification lists had been approved provisionally under rule 9B but no bonds were taken as is required under that rule. We are unable to account for this, nor were the two sides at the hearing able to throw any light. It is not the first time that we have seen records of this kind that say provisional assessment had been made-but in reality no such thing was done. It is, perhaps, one of those habits the Central Excise cannot break. 28. The Collector filed before us a cross-objection. We are at a loss to make anything of this. 29. We reject the appeal.
-
1984 (3) TMI 411 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Rule 49 were approved by Parliament. The retrospective effect of the amendment was pursuant to the Finance Bill of 1982. Parliament being the rule making authority has unrestricted powers to amend the Rule. 10. The removal was without any information to the department and hence the infringement of Rule 9 has been made out. The show cause notice has been issued on 4-7-1976 prior to the amendment of Rule 10. The restricted shorter period of limitation of six months would not apply. 11. Though the appellants have contravened the provisions of the statute, the circumstances under which the contravention took place, especially in view of the unsettled state of affairs with conflicting decisions should be adverted to. This situation definitely calls for interference in respect of the personal penalty. Hence while confirming the demand for duty, the penalty imposed is set aside. The order of the lower authorities is modified accordingly and the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1984 (3) TMI 410 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t obtained any licence for the manufacture of these parts. So the appellant cannot claim the benefit of the notification. 10. The lower authorities have confiscated the goods, imposed the redemption fine of ₹ 5,000/- and a penalty of ₹ 1,000/-. It is well settled that the amendment made in Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules by the notification of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Finance (Deptt. of Revenue) No. G.S.R. 74(E), dated 22-9-1982 contains an explanation whereby it is declared that no action or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would not have been so punishable if this section had not come into force. In view of this explanation, the question of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty cannot be sustained. The appellant, is, however, liable to pay the duty. The appeal is hence allowed in part confirming the duty but setting aside the penalty as well as the confiscation.
-
1984 (3) TMI 409 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... te dated 14-7-1975 from which it would appear that bare-speakers would not be assessable as speakers. The order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay in the appeal would support the appellants’ for assessment under Tariff Item 68 of CET of the goods. Apart from this once it is held that the use of the speakers in gramophone or record players etc. as component parts is not commercially viable the decision of the Bench in Order No. B-997/83 becomes applicable to the present appeal. The Bench decision had also distinguished the Murphy India case on which Shri Kunhikrishnan has relied. 5. In view of the foregoing the appellants claim for assessment under Tariff Item 68 (all the Bs/E relate to period after 1-3-1975) for c.v.d. would appear to be well merited. As a result the assessment under T.I. 37A(ii) is set aside and the goods are held properly assessable under Tariff Item 68. The appeal is therefore, allowed with the consequential refund to the appellants.
-
1984 (3) TMI 408 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... assessment purposes as determined by the Additional Collector in the impugned order was correct. We, however, notice that no evidence has been found by the Department to show that the appellants had remitted clandestinely any amount towards the cost of the goods imported over and above what they had declared in the import documents. We further find that the appellants had not withheld any information from the very beginning and had made a clean breast of the whole transaction by giving the actual price paid by them as a result of the concession given to them. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the imposition of the redemption fine or personal penalty was not justified. We accordingly remit both the redemption fine and the personal penalty imposed on the appellants. So much of the appeal, therefore, deserves to be accepted. 17. We thus partly accept this appeal in the above terms and direct the appellants be given consequential relief which flows therefrom.
-
1984 (3) TMI 407 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the arguments advanced and the material placed before him. On this ground the order cannot be assailed. The ruling on the point relied on by appellant need not therefore be discussed. The appellants also relied on an advertisement of Controllerate of Procurement, Naval Store Depot, Sewri contained in Indian Trade Journal dated 18-1-1984 wherein tenders are specifically invited for the Ammonia Printing Machines. He, therefore, argued that in the trade the machine is known as Ammonia Printing Machine and not as reproducing or photo copying machine or office machine. We do not accept this argument. There may be several types of reproducing machines and photo copying machines and it would not be possible to list all these in the notification or tariff item. In view of the foregoing we are satisfied that the appellants product is nothing but a photo copying machine. The Appellate Collector’s order therefore calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 406 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... end cannot suddenly become the accountable and dutiable quantity merely because in a particular case it is (or appears to be) higher than the quantity ascertained at the consignor’s end. 17. We have considered it desirable to discuss in detail the entire question relating to the correctness of seeking to demand duty on apparent “excesses”, since it is a general question and it appeared to us that the approach which we found the department to have adopted in this case was wanting in logic and consistency. So far as the present case is concerned, the appeal of HPC succeeds on the short point that it was the consignee and not HPC who was liable to account for any discrepancy between the quantity of goods procured by the consignee and the quantity subsequently accounted for by them. In this view, the Collector’s appeal becomes infructuous and has to be dismissed. 18. We accordingly allow the appeal of HPC and dismiss the appeal of the Collector.
-
1984 (3) TMI 405 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d films should be used in the manufacture of electronic capacitors and evidence of such use should be produced. The Certificate produced by the appellants cannot be regarded as adequate discharge of their obligation in terms of the notification and in terms of the bond executed by them to satisfy the proper authority that the films imported by them had in fact been used in the manufacture of electronic capacitor. It is futile to argue that metallised films had only one use. If this is so, there is no purpose in the notification requiring evidence of such end-use even in respect of such metallised film. Further, we notice from the impugned order that the appellants were not the manufacturers of electronic capacitors. This only shows that the onus on them was even more onerous to establish compliance with the prescribed manner of end-use. In this view of the matter we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order which we, therefore, up-hold. We reject the appeal.
-
1984 (3) TMI 404 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s follows “This is a special chemical to form Electrodes on Ceramic substance by Screen Printing process using 350 mesh screen. This special suspension is being imported only for the manufacture of Ceramic Capacitors with low dissipation factor.” The Assistant Collector held against the appellants on the ground that no documentary evidence had been produced. In view of the Technical Write-up now presented, it is obvious that the silver powder suspension has been imported only for the manufacture of ceramic capacitors. The proposition is strengthened by the subsequent Notification No. 117-Cus., dated 19-6-1980 which has been set out above. It is significant to note silver powder suspension has been classified under Chapter 32. Under those circumstances, the prayer of the appellants that the imported material is to be assessed under Chapter 32 of the C.T.A. attracting 60% 15% is leviable at the time of import is justifiable. The appeal is therefore allowed.
........
|
