|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 318 Records
-
1990 (7) TMI 320 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not be regarded as bringing about any change in the rate of tax for the purpose of section 8-A(3-A) of the Act. 7.. In our view, both the submissions made by the learned counsel are correct. Even without the clarificatory amendment, the position was that section 6-C only levied surcharge on the tax payable and, therefore, did not bring about any change in the rate of tax. Therefore notification dated December 29, 1975, reducing the tax on the goods in question from 4 per cent to 2 per cent remained unaffected. Obviously as some of the authorities under the Act understood section 6-C as having brought about change, in the rate of tax, the Legislature clarified the same by an amendment made to the Act by Act No. 36 of 1986, that it was not so. 8.. In the result, we make the following order (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice is set aside. (iii) The respondents are directed not to take any further action pursuant to the impugned notice. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 319 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... able. 5.. Coming to second limb of argument of Mr. Kar that there is no material for the purpose of a bifurcation of the goods sold for the purpose of enhancement we find that the accounts of the dealer were examined. On examination when the assessing authorities were satisfied that the dealer has been dealing with commodities taxable at different rates, enhancement at a higher percentage in respect of those goods which are main business and lesser percentage in respect of comparatively lesser business cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no unreasonableness. 6.. If we had been exercising appellate power, question would have been different. In a reference under section 24, there is no scope for us to exercise the appellate power to vary the enhancement. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question is to be answered against the dealer. There would be no order as to costs. J.M. MAHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1990 (7) TMI 318 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fication squarely falls under section 8-A(1)(a) of the Act. As this is the correct position, it follows that the reduction in the rate of tax granted in the notification ceased to be effective with effect from March 15, 1980, on which date there was change of rate of tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question first set out as follows The notification dated April 23, 1975, issued by the State Government under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, reducing the rate of tax payable on twist drills, taps, dies, reamers, cutters, endmills and the similar small machine tools from 8 per cent to 4 per cent ceased to be effective from March 15, 1980, on which date by an amendment to the Act the rate of tax on those items was increased from 8 per cent to 10 per cent, as the notification falls under section 8-A(1)(a) of the Act. 7.. In the result, we make the following order The revision petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 317 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egard to item No. 6 of the Second Schedule and item No. 20 of the Sixth Schedule, the rates of taxation with regard to other items of the Second Schedule and the Sixth Schedule are to be upheld. 16.. One more question posed before us is as to from what date our judgment is to be effective? The complaint of the petitioners is that they had not charged their customers the sales tax and they are obliged to pay from their pockets. On this aspect of the matter, when we put it to the learned Government Advocate, a memo was filed with regard to composition for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90 (i.e., up to 31st March, 1990). We passed a separate order on 19th July, 1990, in respect of the dealers who had agreed for the composition, and other dealers in terms of the memo. This means that our judgment would be effective from 1st April, 1990, onwards. 17.. Subject to the above, we dismiss all these writ petitions with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 in each petition. Writ Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 316 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e department (i) Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bombay Traders 1976 38 STC 286 (Bom). (ii) Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 1987 64 STC 420 (Bom). (iii) Agricultural Implements Dealers Syndicate v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1970 25 STC 79 (SC). In our view, none of these cases have relevance to the controversy before us. First case merely lays down that High Court is bound by findings of facts and unless question is referred about those findings, being not supported by evidence, there is no jurisdiction to go into that. The second case lays down well-known principle that it is the predominant use of the article which is decisive of the matter and not its stray use. The third case decides that mowers in item No. 1 of Schedule I of section 10(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act does not include chaff-cutter . 11.. Under the circumstances, we record the answer to the question in the negative. No order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1990 (7) TMI 314 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
TAXABLE TURNOVER — DEDUCTIONS — SALES IN THE COURSE OF IMPORT — COMPONENTS IMPORTED UNDER IMPORT LICENCE IN DEALER'S NAME — COMPONENTS ASSEMBLED AND SOLD — SALE WAS NOT IN COURSE OF IMPORT — PRODUCT SOLD DIFFERENT COMMODITY — ASSEMBLING AMOUNTED TO MANUFACTURE — GOODS IMPORTED THROUGH STC ON BASIS OF LETTER OF AUTHORITY — SALE OF IMPORTED GOODS TO RAILWAYS.
-
1990 (7) TMI 313 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Re-classification upon notice from Department - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... engthens our view and accordingly we hold that cause of action arises only from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice in modifying the approved classification and hence the demand for duty in terms of the revised classification can be enforced only from the date of Show Cause Notice and not from the period prior to the issue of Show Cause Notice. Principles of natural justice demand that no one should be allowed to suffer for having acted in accordance with directions given by a properly empowered authority after disclosure of all facts without concealment. If any change takes place and that is merely a change in the interpretation of the tariff entry on similar facts and circumstances, it should come into effect from the date when it was made known to the party and not for the period anterior to such modification. 7. emsp In the result we hold that the demand cannot be enforced for the period prior to the date of show cause notice and accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
-
1990 (7) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Limitation - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... hese products under T.I. No. 26-A. In the circumstances, claim for the period from 10-5-1978 will be deemed as a consequence of the said order, dated 23-4-1979, made by the said Assistant Collector. Therefore, the appeal bearing No. 2591/80 partly succeeds. rdquo 4. emsp The fact that the duty was paid under protest is not disputed, it is true that the protest is made with reference to the classification of goods in tariff item 68 and claiming exemption under notification 119/75, dated 30th April, 1975 i.e. claiming assessment on job work charges. However, a payment on protest is a payment under protest whether it relates to the classification of goods under one tariff item or the other. As long as the duty is paid under protest the limitation does not commence and the refund should be treated as within the period of limitation. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the order of the Collector (Appeals) on different grounds. 5. emsp The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1990 (7) TMI 297 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... Company Applications Nos. 342, 343 and 344 of 1990 are dismissed. No costs. An oral application has been made under article 134A(b ) of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioners/respondents for a certificate that a substantial question of law of general importance is involved in this case and that the matter needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Apart from the fact that the appeal before us was confined to the interim orders and the main case is yet to be finally decided by the learned company judge, we have followed the laws laid down by the Supreme Court and applied them to the facts before us. There is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law of general importance, involved in the instant case. All the questions that were raised before us have been answered by us in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court of India. There is nothing which needs a decision of the Supreme Court. The prayer for certificate is accordingly refused.
-
1990 (7) TMI 288 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Oppression and Mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... imbursement of the amounts contributed and until the parties exercise their options, no immovable property or machinery of the company is liable for disposal without the previous permission of the court thereby securing the interests of the public funds as well as the investment made by the petitioners-appellants. There is also a provision made for the parties to seek further guidance and directions of this court in case any difficulty arises. In that view of the matter, we do not see any good ground for interfering with the order of the learned company judge which has been the result of a careful consideration of the material placed before him. We have already observed that the complaint itself is frivolous and made with the object of harassing respondents Nos. 2 to 7 particularly/ respondent No. 2, the managing director. Options as required by paragraphs (c) and (e) shall be exercised within three months from today. Subject to the above observations, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1990 (7) TMI 287 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and proceedings - Presumptions to be drawn where minutes duly drawn and signed ... ... ... ... ..... Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs. 1,06,000 against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and by virtue of the agency agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, the aforesaid unpaid amount is payable by the defendants to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18 per annum. The tractor in question was supplied to defendant No. 4 on January 10, 1986. Defendant No. 4 has paid the amount to defendant No. 1. The plaintiff is entitled to interest from the date of supply of the tractor till, realisation of the price of the same. In this view of the matter, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs. 1,06,000. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 18 per annum from the date of supply of the tractor to defendant No. 4, i.e., January 10, 1986, and at the same rate from the date of filing of the suit till its realisation. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (7) TMI 286 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Directors – Power of, Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... company were earning substantial income in their respective routes and it would not be in the interest of the shareholders to wind up the company and in order to rid the company of mismanagement, the reliefs prayed for under sections 397 and 398 of the Act have to be made available. We are unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 39 of 1984 that C.P. No. 18 of 1979 is not maintainable since there is no plea or proof of the ingredients of section 397(2)(b) of the Act. From paragraphs 53, 54 and 57 of the petition, such a plea can be spelt out and, as for proof, there is overwhelming evidence to fulfil the requirements of sections 397 and 398 of the Act as referred to earlier. Thus, on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the available materials, we hold that no case is made out to interfere with the order of the learned company judge. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals with costs. Counsel s fee one set.
-
1990 (7) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Franchise agreement ... ... ... ... ..... tor of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector rsquo s order and allowed the appeal. He held that the benefit of the notification was admissible to the respondents herein. 2. emsp During the hearing before us today, none was present on behalf of the respondents although notice of hearing was issued to them on 22-6-1990. We have therefore, heard the learned JDR in the matter and we have also gone through the records of the case. We observe that the issue in already decided by this Tribunal in order No. 285/286/89-D, dated 22-8-1989 following the judgments of Delhi and Bombay High Courts. We have no reason to take a different view than the view taken by the Tribunal in the decision cited supra. Following the said decision, we uphold the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) and dismiss the appeal with the direction that the refund may be granted. If otherwise admissible under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-1978 on the basis of value of clearances.
-
1990 (7) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d to fit under Chapter 29 as separate chemically defined organic compounds containing impurities. The continuity in the duty structure referred to in the Finance Minister rsquo s speech may also not be of much help to the appellants because it is seen from the objects of the CETA Bill, 1985 that the efforts at such preservation was only to the extent possible, thereby indicating that it was perhaps not the intention to preserve the pre-existing structure wholesale. So far as the claim for exemption under Notification 276/67 is concerned, when once the products are to be not classifiable under Chapter 27, this notification would have then no application to such products, and we find that the benefit of Notification 217/86 relating to MODVAT has been extended to the appellants wherever they were found to have satisfied the conditions thereto. In these circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower authorities and the appeals are rejected.
-
1990 (7) TMI 261 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... set out on page 7 of the order of Member (Judicial). Further, the Court has also observed that a litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence. In the present case there is nothing to suggest that the delay is on account of deliberateness or culpable negligence. 11. In the above view of the matter I would agree with the order proposed by the learned Member (Judicial) and condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal before the Tribunal and direct the appeal be listed for hearing for disposal on merits in accordance with law. 12. The papers may now be placed before the original Bench for further proceedings in accordance with law. Final Order In view of the majority decision, the delay in the presentation of the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and the Registry is directed to list the Stay Petition for hearing by the Bench.
-
1990 (7) TMI 260 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... sue of the claim being barred by limitation. The duty amount is paid on 6-1-1982 and the final claim is lodged on 1-3-1983 but then, vide letter dated 3-6-1982 the appellants have already lodged the claim provisionally claiming refund of Rs. 26,700 - making it subject to modification, to the extent of goods that might be recovered in the investigation by the police. The said letter dated 3-6-82 has been received by the Department on 8-6-1982, and obviously the same is within the period of six months. 11. Taking all the factors into consideration, it appears that the authorities below have erred in not entertaining the claim for refund. They ought to have considered the documentary evidence adduced and should have entertained the claim and granted permissible refund. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Assistant Collector, Refund Sec. shall examine the claim in the light of the observation made above, and may sanction the appropriate amount as refund, as per the law.
-
1990 (7) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Consequential refund ... ... ... ... ..... , bring in a new ground which was not agitated before the lower authorities. We, therefore, reject it. 23. We had allowed one additional ground to the effect that there has been grave miscarriage of justice and that it is the substance of the matter which has to be looked into for the purpose of assessment and the State should not restrict it on a technicality. We have considered this ground. In this matter the appellants recovered all the amounts now sought as refund from their customers. What they are now seeking is only what was already recovered by them. The refunds the appellants obtained were because of the legal provisions only and it is only other legal provisions like limitation, etc. which stood in the way of the appellants getting the other parts of the refund. Therefore, we see no grave injustice done to the appellants nor is there any justification or authority for ignoring legal provisions contained in the Central Excise Act and Rules. 24. We dismiss the appeal.
-
1990 (7) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... note that the withdrawal of deemed credit is by virtue of an order under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and as such assumed the status of a statutory order. It is well established that any notification which is statutory in nature or a statutory order under law should be published in the gazette of Government of India and the same must also be put into circulation. This position has been emphasised and highlighted in the rulings of the Madras and Bombay High Courts cited supra which we respectfully follow. The same view has also been adopted in a subsequent ruling by the Calcutta High Court. In the present case the learned D.R. reports that the public came to know about the withdrawal of the deemed credit by the trade notice which was published on 24-11-1987. Therefore, we hold that the deemed credit taken between 2-11-1987 and 24-11-1987 cannot be held to be irregular or unlawful. In this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1990 (7) TMI 257 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... e Modvat scheme cannot be denied to the appellants. Any other interpretation would only lead to incongruous situation where it may so happen that the goods which were manufactured even in the previous year and had not yet been cleared from the manufacturer rsquo s factory or were in the stream of the market for being brought to the factory for manufacturing the end product in respect of which Modvat credit was available, the same would on receipt even after filing of declaration for the benefit of the Modvat credit could be taken into account and the goods which were received much earlier and lying in stock with the appellants would not get the benefit. Following the ratio of the Bench ruling cited supra, we hold that the reasoning of the lower Appellate Authority in restricting the period for availing deemed credit to one month preceding the filing of the declaration, is not sustainable in law. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1990 (7) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Internal Combustion Engines ... ... ... ... ..... given opportunity of putting forth their grounds. The principle of natural justice requires that the Revenue should express its point of view in the matters. Therefore, this Tribunal cannot play the role of a wise counsel to the legislature, and at this stage to decide the scope of Notification No. 69/87. 12. In effect, while upholding the order of the Collector in respect of the application of Notification No. 281/76 and its amendments, the appellant rsquo s prayer for extending the benefit of the amended Notification to Notification No. 281/76 for certain parts of the items imported by them, which were denied by the Collector in his order as listed in Annexure- rsquo C rsquo for which they have now produced catalogue is allowed, and the Collector may now re-examine the eligibility as per the catalogue and pass an order accordingly, after hearing the appellants. To this extent alone the appeal is allowed by way of remand, otherwise the appeal has no merits and is dismissed.
........
|
