|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 222 Records
-
1989 (11) TMI 63 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Insurance Company ... ... ... ... ..... rectify them, as far as possible, at its earliest, particularly when the ends of the justice so require. In our opinion it is the duty of the Tribunal to see that mistakes of the nature pointed out do not perpetuate in judicial record resulting in avoidable loss to a party. In this view of the matter, we get strength, we think, from the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indo Java and Co. v. IAC 1989 30 ITD 161 (Delhi) where it has been held that Notwithstanding the fact whether or not any ground are set forth by either party memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal, the Tribunal can suo moto take any ground for consideration and in fact it is its duty to do so whenever it deems it necessary so to do in order to bring the assessment in conformity with law. 19. In the result this appeal is allowed. The compensation amount of Rs. 50,000, the accident benefit amount of Rs. 10,000, as discussed above, shall not be subjected to levy of estate duty
-
1989 (11) TMI 62 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e appellate authority agreed with the findings of the original adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal. At this stage Government observe that the sugar was removed out of the factory on 18-5-1987 and the duty was paid on 20-5-1987 by making a debit entry in their P.L.A., much before the issue of show cause notice dated 29-7-1987. Government have also considered the plea of the petitioner that after intimating the Department on 15-5-1987 that they want to take the clearance as for fresh classification list submitted by them and that they were facing storing problem. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Government hold that there is no indication of any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners to evade Central Excise duty in this case. Government, therefore, following the ratio of the decision of the Board quoted by the petitioners set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 500/- imposed on the petitioners. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (11) TMI 61 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
Refund claim - Limitation
... ... ... ... ..... ciple. The new law of limitation providing a longer period cannot revive a dead remedy. Nor can it suddenly extinguish vested right of action by providing for a shorter period of limitation . 19. Thus, we hold that the refund claim lodged by the appellants was not time barred in view of old Rule 11, which would apply in the instant case. 20. From the record we find that the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on merits as well as being time barred under new Rule 11. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) also without deciding the refund claim on merits rejected the appeal only on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi had rejected the appeal filed by the appellants only on the ground that the refund claim was barred by limitation, we remit the case to him to decide the appeal on merits in view of our findings that the claim was not hit by limitation. 21. In the result the appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1989 (11) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Refund application - Form of ... ... ... ... ..... se three months have later been altered to one year under Rule 173J. The application dated 9-5-75 which is admittedly an application for refund clearly states we are enclosing herewith a statement of purchases of scrap from Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur and Tin Plate Co. Ltd. From the application dated 9-5-75, it could not be said that it is not a proper application under Rule 11 as quoted above and the view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, erroneous and cannot be accepted. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is modified and directed that the claim of refund shall be verified by the Collector of Central Excise not from 22-11-74 but from 10-5-74 upto 31-7-75 and the Collector of Central Excise after verification will find out whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the notification and is entitled to refund during this period, it shall direct the refund. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
Seizure - Show cause notice for confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... owing observation of this Court in Asstt. Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.) - "Section 124 provides that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty. The section does not lay down any period within which the notice required by it has to be given. The period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of the notice"(Emphasis supplied). 5.The delay beyond six months in the issue of the show cause notice goes to and affects the power to detain the seized goods beyond six months and does not denude the adjudicating authority of the power to initiate proceedings even thereafter. 6.We find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed; but without an order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication - Prosecution - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... toms Act and passing appropriate orders. We are in respectful agreement with the law propounded by the Division Benches noticed above. The view taken by the learned Judge runs contrary to the settled law. 6. Since the respondent had made an admission before the statutory authorities, he is bound by that admission in so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned and the mere fact that the Criminal Court did not find sufficient evidence to convict him would not take away the material effect of that admission made before the statutory authorities, a retraction of the confession notwithstanding. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent did attempt to take us into the facts of the case but in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction, we do not wish to be drawn into that field since the writ petition was allowed on the sole ground as noticed above. 8. Consequently, from what has been noticed above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... heir learned counsel to find out a practical way of identifying essential documents required to be made copies of. It would also, perhaps, be appropriate for the Collector to sift the seized documents and, as far as practicable at this stage, to identify the documents essentially necessary for the department so that the non-essential surplusage could be weeded out to the extent possible to reduce the number of documents which the petitioner may make copies of. 3. Reasonable expenditure for copying whatever document the petitioner would ultimately find it reasonably necessary to take copies of, shall be reimbursed by the department to the petitioners. Para 9(a) of the Departmental Instructions, enjoins on it to furnish copies at its own cost. 4. The documents on which the department does not seek to rely shall be returned to the petitioners, if not already done, within four weeks from today. 5. With these observations and directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
-
1989 (11) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... attract Tariff Item 25AA (should be Tariff Item 25 Ed.). In our opinion, therefore, the orders passed by the third and fourth respondents at Annexures G and H are liable to be quashed and set aside. The petition is, therefore, allowed. By way of interim relief dated April 2, 1981 the petitioner has furnished Bank guarantee for the amount of duty payable by it. The petitioner will be at liberty to discharge the Bank guarantee. If the petitioner has paid any amount of duty to the Department the petitioner will submit an application for the refund of the amount of duty so paid with necessary details on or before January 31, 1990. On submission of the application the Department shall decide the application for refund within a period of two months from the date of submission of the application. The application for refund shall be decided in light of the principles laid down and the observations made in this judgment. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Evidence - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... law is not a piece of additional evidence. It is a law of which public notice must be taken of as being operative on the field to which it applies. The question of bar under Section 39A of the Act, therefore, does not arise and the Tribunal (Board) was perfectly justified in taking notice of the notification alongwith the forms appended to that notification, which, for all practical purposes must be deemed to be a part of the notification itself. It is needless to go into the question as to whether in such circumstances. Section 39A of the Act could at all come into play or not. We, therefore, need not go into any other academic question and must answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, and the learned counsel for the Revenue has very fairly accepted the legal position that the case must be decided against the Revenue, we shall not make any order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 53 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Show Cause Notice - Assessment — Principle of estoppel not applicable in tax matters ... ... ... ... ..... cycle. Further as to how the use of a dynamo in relation to a cycle has been understood by the Government of India for the purposes of this Act and whether it was treated as an accessory or as a cycle part, the Notification No. 3/86-Central Excise, dated 16-1-1986 provides sufficient guidance. It has chosen to grant relief for cycle accessories for the period mentioned therein. This notification had not treated dynamos as cycle part but only as an accessory. By availing the benefit thereunder, it had resulted in the two writ petitions being dismissed, as having become infructuous and withdrawn. Therefore, for the period involved in this appeal, dynamos cannot but be treated as an exemption by relying upon Notification Nos. 54/75, 86/79 and 102/80. It is, therefore, liable to pay duty for the period from 24-4-1980 to 15-6-1980 and to this extent alone, the impugned orders are upheld. Hence, to this extent, F.A. No. 484/84 is allowed and W.A. No. 803/83 is dismissed. No costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise 1988 (34) E.L.T. 528 , it had been held that normally it is not the function of the High Court to interfere with a discretionary order passed under Section 35F of the Act, and it could be done only in deserving cases if it be shown that the order of the Tribunal is perverse. Such a situation does not exist in this case. 7. Lastly, he would refer to Ashoka Rubber Products v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (43) E.L.T. 605 . But this decision does not take away the condition of pre-deposit, as upheld by the Supreme Court, in the manner found in Section 35F of the Act. Therefore, when the Tribunal had taken into account the financial ability of the Company and after giving waiver in respect of the demand pertaining to biscuit tins, and having directed the pre-deposit only in respect of the other items, it cannot be treated as a perverse order. 8. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. Time for pre-deposit is extended till 31-12-1989.
-
1989 (11) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Demand - Limitation - Extended period of five years - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... Section 11A, I have also considered the arguments on merits. 21. In the light of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in the two cases referred to above, viz., Cibatul and Play-World Electronics, I am satisfied that the clauses of the agreement considered by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above are similar to the clauses of the agreement involved in the present case. The Department has failed to make out a case that the manufacture and supply of cement paint under the brand name Blucem was as an agent or contractor of the brand name owner. They have also failed to meet the case of the petitioner on facts that the entire manufacture and supply was on principal to principal basis. I uphold the case of the petitioner on this aspect. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Collector as per Annexure A is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs of Writ Petition which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.
-
1989 (11) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Customs - Sale of imported goods ... ... ... ... ..... pediment to release the goods as the petitioners have made prima facie payment. Having heard in details and looking into the materials on record this Court does not appreciate why the Port Trust Authorities claim him as the owner of the goods. Since there was an auction sale at the instance of the Customs authority and the amount was increased there is no bar and/or impediment to grant the relief to the petitioner in the manner as sought for. The stands taken by the Port Trust Authority does not appear to be just and fair. Considering this aspects of the matter the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute. There will be an issuance of appropriate writ by quashing the letter dated 23-6-1979 copy of which is Annexure C to the writ petition. The respondents are directed to act in terms of the stand taken according to the order dated 31-5-1979 copy of which is Annexure A to the writ petition within a period of eight weeks from date. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT
Central Excise - Rate of duty prevalent on the date of removal applicable ... ... ... ... ..... Collector, Central Excise has preferred this appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 16-11-1987. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (SC) 1989-4 Judgments Today 184 . This Court has held that, having regard to the scheme of the Act as well as the terms of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Excise Authorities are competent to apply the rate prevailing on the date of removal of goods even though the production or manufacture may have been completed at a point of time when the goods were exempt from tax. Following the above decision of this Court, this appeal is allowed. The order of the Appellate Tribunal will stand set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise will stand restored, subject to such other contentions or objections as may be available to the assessee in law. We make no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rate of duty - Customs - Equitable ... ... ... ... ..... the writ petitioners. 9. It has been pointed out to me that the Bank has not yet paid the amount of the Bank Guarantees though the Bank was directed to do so on earlier occasion by this Court. If at all any amount is received from the Bank, the writ petitioners will be entitled to credit for the amount received and collected by the Collector of Customs from the Bank. However the obligation of the bank to pay the amount of the bank guarantee is not to be affected by this order in any manner whatsoever. 10. This order will not prejudice the rights of the Collector of Customs to realise the amount of the Bank Guarantees, from the bank concerned. 11. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the writ application and the same is liable to and is hereby dismissed. The Rule is, therefore, discharged. 12. Stay applied for is declined. 13. All parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of this order on usual undertaking.
-
1989 (11) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs Duty - Taxable event ... ... ... ... ..... appeal is directed to stand dismissed. 4. In conclusion, it may be mentioned that the case before us is even stronger than the case before the Division Bench, inasmuch as, in Jain Sudh Vanaspati case the vessel had entered territorial waters of India and then gone to Karachi, a port in foreign country. Even then the taxable event was held to be when the vessel had first entered the territorial waters of India and not at the second time. In the instant case the vessel left Bombay and had gone to Haldia and Calcutta (both ports in India) and with the express permission of the Customs authorities. 5. Hence, the Appeal is directed to stand dismissed. Appellants to pay the costs of the respondent fixed at Rs. 300/-. Mr. Mehta submits that though the order was passed in June 1989 and more than five months have elapsed, the appellants have not complied with various parts of the order. Liberty to the respondent to take out Motion for contempt if so advised before appropriate Court.
-
1989 (11) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption notification (Central Excise) - Orthoxylene - Levy of additional duty of customs thereon
-
1989 (11) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Exemption Notification with fixed date - Withdrawal of exemption prior to that date ... ... ... ... ..... cases are demonstrated in the proper perspective. Various decisions on the point of estoppel and promissory estoppel were considered by this court as noted in the aforesaid decision. 4. By looking to the aforesaid position once again and looking to the facts of the case, this court is of the view that in the instant case the sufferance of the petitioner have well been demonstrated and the allegations made by the petitioner had not been controverted by the respondents in any manner whatsoever. Applying the test as laid down this court does not find any bar and/or impediment to grant relief to the petitioner as prayed for. 5. For the foregoing reasons the rule is made absolute and the writ petition is allowed. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 92.981.26P. as wrongfully and illegally realised from it, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 6. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (11) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prosecution - Bail - Anticipatory Bail ... ... ... ... ..... at the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating agency. The petitioner has admittedly now appeared and has given the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The petitioner has explained in the petition as well as in the rejoinder-affidavit as to how he could not come to Delhi on the date fixed by the Bombay High Court and he also mentioned that he applied to the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court had permitted him to come to Delhi on August 17, 1989 and he had reached Delhi in the evening on that day. So, it cannot be said that the petitioner had not been cooperating with the investigating agency. 9. In view of the above discussion, I direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- (two lakhs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. The petitioner shall continue to join investigation whenever required.
-
1989 (11) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Allegation of non-declaration with intention to evade customs duty - Import ... ... ... ... ..... n be said to have been disclosed against him either under Section 135 of the Customs Act or under any of its sub-clauses or under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. I, therefore, find that the order of discharge is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. 11. It may additionally be mentioned that the Government of India were pleased to exonerate the Respondent for similar reasons as have been considered above in Customs Revision Application Order No. 305 of 1986 dated 24-7-1986 a copy of which has been produced before me by Mr. Kotwal, the learned Advocate for the Respondent. The reasons given in the said order provided further assurance that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified on the material that was produced before him. 12. In the result, the order of discharge of the Respondent passed by the Court below dated 31-10-1985 is hereby confirmed and the Revision Application is dismissed. Rule accordingly discharged.
....
|
