|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 271 Records
-
1987 (11) TMI 344
... ...
... ... ..... A8/2384/82 dated 15th May, 1982 for 1980-81 assessment and No. A8/2400/82 dated 15th May, 1982 for 1979-80 assessment. 10.. As regards Writ Petition No. 5174 of 1983 for the assessment year 1981-82, we do not wish to go into the question raised by the petitioner, as an appeal is provided against the assessment made. The petitioner could have filed an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority and sought appropriate relief concerning the levy of purchase tax on paddy purchased. In the circumstances, we dismiss the petition for the assessment year 1981-82 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority within four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority will entertain the same without raising the plea of limitation and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 11.. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Writ petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (11) TMI 343
Time within which an assessment can be made under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 where the return is not filed by the dealer within the time prescribed in that behalf
Held that:- Appeal allowed. On a true construction of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act we are of opinion that where a return is not filed by a dealer before the date prescribed in that behalf under the Act, the assessing authority has got jurisdiction to complete the assessment within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates. Admittedly, in these cases the returns were not filed within the prescribed date and the assessments have been made within six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessments relate. The orders of the High Court against which these appeals have been filed are therefore liable to be set aside.
-
1987 (11) TMI 334
... ...
... ... ..... laid down by this Court in C.A. No. 1633 of 1974 Indian Express (P.) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu printed at page 474 supra there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 325
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... the officers of the company are compelled to make public the information relating to their financial positions. The public can have access to this information on inspection of the records of the Registrar of Companies on payment of requisite fee. Considering, therefore, the objects of the provisions of sections 159 and 220 read with section 162 of the Act and the language used therein, I am of the opinion that the offences of which the petitioners are charged, namely, non-filing of the annual returns and balance-sheet and profit and loss account within the period prescribed, are continuing offences and therefore the period of limitation prescribed by section 468 of the Code cannot have any application. The offences which are alleged against the petitioners will be governed by section 472 of the Code according to which, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. All these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 324
Shares warrants and entries in register of members ... ... ... ... ..... a wrong statement regarding having lost the same while in fact the same had been sold by him prior to 1977 which sale was not registered by the company. So, there is a patent error apparent on the record of the case necessitating review of the impugned order dated August 10, 1984, so far as it directs the receiver to take steps to get duplicate shares of Superior Air Products Ltd. standing in the name of the judgment-debtor, P. S. Khambete. In view of the above discussion, the review application, E. A. No. 57 of 1987 is accepted and the impugned order dated August 10, 1984, is reviewed so as not to contain the direction to the receiver to take steps to obtain duplicate shares from Superior Air Products Ltd. standing in the name of the judgment-debtor, P. S. Khambete. For the same reason, the Code of Civil Procedure also fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500. This order of review shall not affect the remaining 75 shares of the judgment-debtor, P. S. Khambete.
-
1987 (11) TMI 308
Charges - Registration of ... ... ... ... ..... the manner they like including its sale by auction or otherwise, maintain an account thereof for the purpose of making an order if required in future in relation to the claim for unpaid wages by the employees, if any. Summing up, the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation is allowed to be kept outside the liquidation. The petitioners shall withdraw the Special Civil Suit No. 46 of 1985. In so far as the Criminal Case No. 184 of 1985, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa, is concerned, the petitioners to file an appropriate application in Company Petition No. 4S of 1986, for vacating the stay granted ex parte. The assistant official liquidator shall segregate the equipment and machinery which stand hypothecated to the said financial institution and hand over the same to them. In this view of the matter and subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition succeeds. The rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1987 (11) TMI 307
Whether the appeal lay to the Division Bench under section 483 of the Act which dealt with appeals from orders?
Held that:- Uphold the direction of the Division Bench in so far as they computed the liability and direct the appellant to pay that sum to the respondent in settlement of the dues referred to hereinbefore.
A sum of Rs. 1,36,038.06 was directed to be paid at the time of the admission of the appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court. If that money has been paid or realised by the respondent, the appellant would pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,81,299 67 and if the money is paid, the respondent will, by virtue of this order, be entitled to withdraw the same and give credit to the appellant for the same. The balance sum will be paid by March 15, 1988. In default of payment by that date, the amount will carry 18% interest.
-
1987 (11) TMI 306
Annual return - General ... ... ... ... ..... ore, are ordered to pay a fine under section 210(5) in the sum of Rs. 75 each. In Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1987, vide Labour Case No. 330 of 1982, the respondents are held guilty of contravention of and non-compliance with section 166 and, therefore, are punished under section 168 and are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 60 each. In Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1987, vide Labour Case No. 331 of 1982, the respondents are held guilty of having contravened the provisions of sections 159 and 161 and, therefore, directed to pay a fine of Rs.25 each. In Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1987, vide Labour Case No. 332 of 1982, the respondents are held guilty of having contravened section 220 and are directed to pay a fine of Rs.25 each. In default of the payment of fine of Rs. 75 each in the first case, Rs.60 each in the second and Rs.25 each in the third and fourth cases, the directors to undergo 5, 3, 2 and 2 days of simple imprisonment, respectively. All the appeals are, accordingly, allowed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 305
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... al so far as they are concerned. But, it should be noted here that sections 220(1), (2) and (3) do not provide for exempting any one from punishment, the company or its directors, even if sufficient reasons are given for their non-filing of the balance-sheet and profit and loss account in time. As pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, mere default in complying with the requirements of section 220(1) and (2) is sufficient to make the company and the officers of the company liable to punishment. While so, the order of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the company, accused No. 1, for the reasons stated by him is not correct and has to be set aside. Accordingly, the order acquitting accused No. 1, company, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for a de novo trial only in so far as accused No. 1 is concerned and the judgment in other respects is confirmed. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and is dismissed in other respects.
-
1987 (11) TMI 282
... ...
... ... ..... down in the amended Notification No. 287/79-C.E. and in effect they could not comply with the same earlier as they were not aware of the same. Tribunal should quash the demand created against the appellants. The ratio of these decisions is applicable in the present case. There has been substantial compliance of Chapter X procedure inasmuch the goods were received at the consignee factory for captive consumption. The absence of L-6 licence and C.T.-2 certificate should not stand in the way of availing of the benefit of exemption notification. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Additional Collector in not demanding the duty. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. Additional Collector has given reasons for imposing penalty of Rs. 500 on the respondents. We do not have justification to set aside the penalty. In the circumstances, the cross-objection filed by the respondents is also dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 281
Demand - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... analty would have to be reduced, if the duty demand comes down on the matter being readjudicated in the manner indicated earlier. As to the argument that the present appellants had no hand in the management of the firm at the relevant period, we have only to observe that the penalty is on the firm and hence the question as to whether the persons who are incharge of the firm now were incharge at the relevant period is not very relevant. In the circumstances while we are of the opinion that the order may require to be modified with reference to quantum of penalty, we are unable to indicate the extent by which penalty should be reduced. We leave the same to be decided at the time of readjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector is set aside, remanding the matter to the Collector for readjudication, in the manner indicated earlier, to properly quantify the demand for duty and then consider the question of the proper penalty to be imposed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 278
... ...
... ... ..... orted after the stipulated period of three yars. When the appellants claimed refund, the Asstt. Collector rejected the same. The Collector of Customs confirmed the findings, on the ground that the authorities had no discretion to extend the time limit prescribed under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence the present appeal. 2. ensp Sh. V. Sridharan, Ld. counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the appeal has no merits inasmuch as Section 20 was mandatory, Sh. J. Gopinath, SDR stated that no relief could be granted inasmuch as Section 20 proviso stipulated a period of three years for importation of the goods. 3. ensp The proviso to Section 20 specifies that re-importation could be allowed provided, such an importation took place within three years after the exportation of the goods. Since the vehicle in question was said to be re-imported after the period of three years, we hold that the orders of the authorities below is correct and the appeal is hence dismissed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 275
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... travelled beyond this general heading of articles of plastic to a more specialised heading of component parts of tape recorders/radios. Therefore, the specific heading will command preference over the general heading heading 92.01/13 as the more specific head was the correct assessment. 5. In their appeal the importers say that there was a tariff advice issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs to the effect that Plastic cabinets for tape recorders, radios etc. even if fitted with some metallic components are liable to duty under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET. The details of the tariff advice have not been given by the appellants, but it must be recorded that Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff is not inappropriate if the goods cannot find more specific items in the same tariff. This is true of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff also. But in this case when a more specific heading is available, Chapter 39 will have to take second or third place. 6. The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (11) TMI 274
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... still achieve the purpose of preserving food and similar function. Even the refrigerator is not all freezer the whole space does not reach freezing point. It is only in the freezer that the lowest temperature is reached, only because the coils carrying refrigerant are concentrated here and it is here that the refrigerating reaches boiling point. It is a mis-understanding that a refrigerating appliance must be able to make ice or must have a circulating refrigerant, compressor, coils etc. etc. The machine that achieves the purpose of chilling or cooling must be classed as a refrigerating appliance even if its construction is entirely different from the refrigerator we are familiar with. Technology does not stand still and new discoveries are coming into use. It is reasonable to assess all cooling machines that bring about refrigeration or chilling like the present food preservers under Item 29A, Central Excise Tariff. 8. The assessment is correct and so the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (11) TMI 273
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... ut not content with one part, the machine decided on a repeat a few days later. Between all these movements to and fro of people, machines, documents etc. there were said to be Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, restricted holidays and holidays due to various festivals. All this took a tremendous two months of office time. This is to say nothing of the normal 3 months (preceding these two months), the normal time allowed by the law for appeal. One notices that the list of events starts only after the expiry of the time limit obviously the appellants did nothing during the three months they are allowed by law for filing the appeal, and seem to take for granted that they should start preparing their appeal only after the expiry of the time limit. The explanation and the delays that are said to have occurred do not convince us that this is a good case for condoning the delay. The case indeed calls for rejection of any condonation. 7. For all the above reasons, the appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (11) TMI 272
Warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... y into the warehouse. It is not legal to reassess them to duty at the rate revalent on the date of clearance. Section 15(b) allows the different rate of duty only to those cases where the consignment was warehoused after being assessed under Section 18 provisionally. 4. The appellants have not understood the provisions of the law correctly. Section 15(b) does not apply just to goods provisionally assessed at the time of warehousing, but to all goods which are warehoused. It lays down that the rate of duty applicable in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, will be the rate in force at the time the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. This provision is clear and unambiguous there can be no mistaking its intention. In this case the rate of duty had been increased when the goods were cleared, and so the authorities were correct to apply the new rate to the goods. There is no error in the action of the lower authorities. 5. The appeal is rejected.
-
1987 (11) TMI 271
Gelatine and Ossein ... ... ... ... ..... ully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are, however, inclined to agree with the contentions of the respondents herein. Looking to the scope of the term ldquo product rdquo one has to necessarily go by the principal raw material out of which such a product emerges. Admittedly, the raw material of the two products in question is crushed bones. Therefore, it has rightly been held in the impugned order that Gelatine and Ossein are bone products. We find sufficient force in the argument of the learned advocate that if Di-calcium phosphate has been held as a bone product eligible to the benefit of notification 221/79-CE, dated 30.6.79, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the said notification to the products in question, namely Ossein and Gelatine. The appellant Collector obviously has not taken into account the aforesaid Order dated 12.5.83 of the Tribunal regarding Di-calcium phosphate. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and the impugned order is confirmed.
-
1987 (11) TMI 270
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 0.29(2) and all others under Item 90.29(1). From the leaflet produced by the appellant it is seen that both the items are electronic instruments and therefore, it would not be incorrect to assume that the two parts contain some electronic component such as semiconductor device, electronic microcircuits etc. As such the two parts imported would fall under Item 90.29(2). Appellants have relied upon decision in 6/49-93/82 dated 17-9-1982 wherein thermocouple, imported as part of electrical pyrometer, was held to be assessable under Items 90.29(1) and 90.28(4). Since the parts in question are different from thermocouple, inasmuch as these contain semiconductor devices, the decision relied upon by appellant is not applicable. It is well known fact that thermocouple do not contain semiconductor devices. 10. We do not find that the appellants have disproved any part of the Collector rsquo s order. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere the same. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (11) TMI 269
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... atus. Since the goods imported are reflectors (mounted mirrors) their classification under Heading No. 90.02 read with Heading 90.09 will be correct. In view of this position the Appeal No. 2189/85-B2 filed by Revenue is rejected. For the same reason the Appeal No. 3/82-B2 filed by M/s. Standard Theatre Supply Co., insofar as it pertains to classification dispute, is allowed. 7. As regards Appeal No. 3/82-B2 pertaining to the import licensing as to whether the goods are allowed under OGL or not, we see that Item No. 434 in Appendix 5 of the relevant Import Policy is clear that mirrors/reflectors for carbon arc lamps are not allowed under OGL. Since the goods imported are reflectors i.e. mirrors (mounted) to be used in conjunction with carbon arc lamp. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in this regard. We therefore reject the appeal of Standard Theatre Supply Co. insofar as it pertains to licensing. 8. Both the appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
1987 (11) TMI 268
... ...
... ... ..... ppellants was of Video Tapes on Hubs. Secondly, the lower authority itself has stated in the impugned order that there was a declining trend in prices since middle of 1984. The invoice of the appellants is dated 20.7.1984, i.e., the period during which the prices had declined. The difference in the invoice price (25 Cents) and assessed price (27 Cents) is not a large one. When the prices were declining since the middle of 1984, it is difficult to say that they had declined to 27 Cents and not to 25 Cents. The lower authority itself has concluded that there was no mens rea on the part of the appellants regarding valuation and no penalty has been imposed on them. In the circumstances, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants and accept the invoice value of the goods. 4. In the result, we set aside the impugned order on both the counts Import Trade Control as well as Valuation. The appeal is allowed. Consequential relief should be granted to the appellants.
........
|
