|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 291 Records
-
1990 (9) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund (Customs) - Rate of exchange ... ... ... ... ..... of exchange is that prevailing on the date of presentation of a Bill of Entry. This is the effect of the post 1-7-1978 amendment and thus viewed petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed. 8. Having negatived the contentions raised by Mr. Deodhar what now remains is the correctness of the view taken by respondents 2 and 3 about the second set of applications being fresh applications. Petitioners contend that they were in the nature of applications to amend a mistake made in the first set. They were that and correction sought related back to the date on which the first sets were presented. This was the proper aspect of the matter and it was an error to construe them as fresh applications. 9. In the result the petition succeeds. Orders of respondents 2 and 3 are hereby quashed. Respondent 1 to refund Unto the petitioners a sum of Rs. 1,60,439.12 ps. together with interest 6 p.a. from date of petition until payment Rule in these terms made absolute with no order for costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Penalty - Clandestine Removal ... ... ... ... ..... with a view to evade payment of excise duty. Hence, it must be held that the very condition precedent to the invocation of power under Rule 9(2) in the present case is missing. The petitioner can by no stretch of imgination be and aid to have removed the concerned items of goods in any clandestine manner so as to incur liability under Rule 9(2). 8. The petitioner believing that the iron bars manufactured by them were exempt from payment of duty vide Notification No. 152/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 235/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977, cleared the same without payment of duty and in such circumstances the extended period of limitation of five years as provided in Rule 9(2) read with Rule 10 (now Section 11A) cannot be invoked and the authorities below have gone wrong on the point. We, therefore, quash the order dated 5th August, 1983 passed by Custom Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 1). Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bearings — Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... from July, 1980 to August, 1981 and the demand prior to the period of six months from the date of service of notice is not valid. We are unable to accept the submission because this demand is made only as a consequence of the decision given by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The demand being in consequence to the adjudication that thrust washers and wrapped bushes are thin walled bearings, in our judgment, the limitation will not be attracted. 10. Accordingly, petition partly succeeds and while upholding the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay on December 5, 1981 it is made clear that the liability of the Company to pay excise duty on thrust washers, thrust half washers and wrapped bushes cleared from the factory arises only from September 23, 1978 onwards. The demand made for the period from August 7, 1978 to September 23, 1978 is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
'Baking powder' ... ... ... ... ..... of baking powder is entitled to claim exemption under notification dated March 1, 1975. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the impugned order of the Additional Secretary to the Government of India dated June 29, 1981 holding that baking powder could not be covered by Item No. 1 of the schedule to the exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated March 1, 1975 is set aside and it is declared that the manufacture of baking powder is not liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 as long as the exemption notification is in operation. It is made clear that the revisional order passed by the Government in respect of other items is not disturbed. The consequential order passed by the Assistant Collector in pursuance of the decision of the revisional authority is also set aside. The bank guarantees funished by the petitioners in accordance with the interim order of this Court to stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demand under Rule 10 ... ... ... ... ..... was framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Act and while Rule 10 was repealed, Section 11A of the Act was amended and an identical provision was inserted. It is not in dispute that Rule 10 was repealed on November 17, 1980 and on the same date, Section 11A of the Act came into operation. It is also necessary to bear in mind the definition of expression rule under Section 3(51) of the General Clauses Act. The expression rule shall mean a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment and shall include a regulation made as a rule under any enactment. In our judgment, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply and the proceedings already commented while Rule 10 was in operation can be determined even after Rule 10 was deleted. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners in respect of demand notice dated October 16, 1980, is, therefore, required to be repelled. 3. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund — Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... der dated February 28, 1975 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, declining to refund the duty collected between March 1, 1973 and December 31, 1973 and the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, on February 13, 1976 confirming the order of the Asstt. Collector and the order dated January 25, 1980 passed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India in revision are set aside and the Asstt. Collector is directed to grant refund to the petitioners for the period commencing from March 1, 1973 and ending with December 31, 1973 in respect of payment of excise duty on clearance of drinking chocolate powder. The Asstt. Collector shall refund the duty on or before December 31, 1990. In case the Asstt. Collector fails to do so, then the duty shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum payable from today till the date of actual refund. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dutiability and Marketability — Burden of proof — Refund — Unjust enrichment — Interest of refund amount
-
1990 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Paper — Tracing paper — Dictionary meanings — Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... e absolute and the order passed on December 24, 1977 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune, and confirmed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay, on September 20, 1979 and the order dated July 28, 1981 passed by the Addl. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finanace, Department of Revenue, in revision are set aside and the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune I Division, is directed to approve the classification list by holding that tracing paper is liable for payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 17(1). The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Pune I Division is directed to ascertain the excess amount of duty paid by the company under Tariff Item No. 17(2) and order refund of said amount to the petitioner-company. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise should pass appropriate orders and give refund within a period of six months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund — Writ jurisdiction — Duty paid under mistake of law is without authority of law — Limitation — Unjust enrichment
-
1990 (9) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption - Subject to observation of procedure of Excise Rule 56A ... ... ... ... ..... nt could have never intended to wipe out the effect of Exemption Notification No. 103/61 by prescribing that only procedure prescribed under Rule 56A should be applicable while availing of the exemption. In our judgment, by no stretch of imagination, the substantive provisions of Rule 56A can be imported while examining whether Company is entitled to advantage of exemption under Notification No. 103/61. The impugned order of the Assistant Collector, therefore, cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated February 26, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division and the copy of which is annexed as Ex. K to the petition is set aside and the demand made by the Assistant Collector in accordance with this notice stands quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The bonds and the Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to stand discharged.
-
1990 (9) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Duty paid under protest - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... s orders, the Department recovered the excess duty from the Company. As soon as those orders are set aside, the Company would be entitled to get the refund and this refund cannot be denied under any provisions of the Act. In our judgment, the Assistant Collector was in error in rejecting the claim of Rs. 2,30,831.39 and sanctioning only Rs. 1,11,677.81. 8. Accordingly, petition succeeds and it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,30,831.39 in addition to the refund granted by the Assistant Collector. The direction to the Assistant Collector to pay the amount of refund is not required, as by an interim order passed at the stage of admission, the Department was required to deposit the amount in this Court and the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the said amount on furnishing an undertaking to refund, if called upon. The undertaking given by the petitioners stands discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Excess production rebate - Notification - Interpretation of ... ... ... ... ..... rge that the refund was secured even in respect of period when the Company had taken advantage of exemption available under Notification No. 42/73. The submission is entirely incorrect. While seeking refund, the Company had specifically excluded clearance for which exemption was availed of under Notification No. 42/73. The Company was entitled to advantage of Notification No. 42/73 till it was superseded by Notification No. 129/77. The petitioners sought refund of duty only when the advantage of exemption Notification No. 216/76 was available with effect from September 30, 1977. In our judgment, all the four show cause notices, in these circumstances, cannot be sustained and are required to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, petition succeeds and show cause notice dated August 29, 1978 demanding back the refund paid and three show cause notices dated August 29, 1978, January 25, 1979 and July 3, 1979 are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Supervision charges ... ... ... ... ..... akes the notice bad. We are unable to accede to the submission. The decision of the Supreme Court is of no assistance in the present case because the Supreme Court was examining the case where the liability to pay the duty had occurred but the demand was made after a considerable period. The present case is not comparable because here the liability did not arise in the year 1974 but only in the year 1982 when the pay scales of the staff employed by the Government were retrospectively revised and consequently the cost increased for providing for their services. It is, therefore, obvious that the claim that the demand is unreasonable on the ground of delay is not accurate. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to hold that the demand suffers from unreasonable delay and, therefore, must be struck down. In our judgment, the demand does not suffer from any infirmity and the petition must fail. 6. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aluminium alloy strips - Dutiability - Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... er of such claim and therefore the contention of unjust enrichment cannot be entertained. Apart from this circumstance, when erroneous orders of the excise authorities are set aside then as consequence of the order the Company is entitled to get refund. In our judgment, the order of refund cannot be declined. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (h) (i) and (ii). The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona is directed to ascertain the amount of refund payable to the Company and pass appropriate order of refund and pay over the said amount to the Company on or before January 15, 1991. In case the amount is not paid before that date, then the Company would be entitled to get back the amount of refund along with interest at the rate of 15 per annum payable from to-day till the date of actual payment. Bank guarantees furnished by the Company in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court to stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the impugned orders passed. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order passed by the Collector rejecting five refund applications filed by the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 3,07,000/- is set aside. The order of the revisional authority confirming the order of the Collector is also set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Collector for fresh determination and for passing appropriate order on five refund applications in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. The order dated March 21, 1979 passed by the Collector in pursuance of the show cause notice dated June 15, 1978 is also set aside and the Collector is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench. The Collector is directed to pass appropriate order in respect of both these cases by end of December 1990. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demand - Short levy - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... Union of India) and 1985 (22) E.L.T. 378 (Simmonds Marshal Ltd. v. M.R. Baralikar, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune and Others) in this respect is very appropriate. In our judgment, the impugned orders cannot be sustained for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of Rule 10A. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Kalyan on April 21, 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Collector on August 31, 1976 and by the Government of India in revision on October 16, 1980 are set aside and the proceedings commenced by the Assistant Collector by service of show cause notice dated October 18, 1975 are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Company would be entitled to consequential relief of refund of duty recovered in pursuance of the orders which are set aside. The Company is not entitled to any interest on this amount but the refund must be paid on or before December 31, 1990.
-
1990 (9) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption Customs ... ... ... ... ..... se is for the convenience of the importer and the date of import cannot be determined with reference to the date on which the goods were cleared from the bonded warehouse. The date of import is on the date when the goods cross the barrier and enter into the territorial jurisdiction of this country. The date of import therefore is between February 1978 and February 1979, and the imported goods were not liable for payment of countervailing duty in view of the exemption notification. It is therefore obvious that the impugned demand notice is contrary to law and cannot be sustained. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the demand notice dated April 20, 1979, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit C to the petition, is quashed. The Company had cleared the remaining imported goods from the bonded warehouse during the pendency of the petition on furnishing bank guarantee in respect of demanded duty. The bank guarantee would now stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs
-
1990 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ jurisdiction — Refund - Unjust Enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... d can be granted by the Assistant Collector for the entire period without reference to clause of limitation under Rule 11. In our judgment, the refund cannot be declined on the ground of laches. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order of the Asstt. Collector declining refund on the ground of limitation under Rule 11 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Asstt. Collector for passing appropriate order of refund. It is made clear that the order of the Assistant Collector awarding refund for certain duration is not disturbed. The Asstt. Collector shall ascertain the amount of refund payable and pass appropriate order and pay the refund on or before December 31, 1990. In case the order is not passed and the amount is not paid, then the department shall pay the amount of refund along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum payable from today till the date of actual payment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... earned counsel for the petitioners is very appropriate. Mr. Desai for the department relied upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Government of India and Ors., reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 378, but in our judgment, the said decision does not carry the case of the Department any further. In our judgment, the order of reviewing authority cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the order dated June 30, 1977 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking, in Review No. 1262 of 1977 and copy of which is annexed as exhibit T to the petition is set aside and that passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, on February 16,1976 in Appeal No. 1-90/76 and copy of which is annexed as exhibit G to the petition is restored. The bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners to stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the products, Bifuran Supplement, Neftin-50 and Neftin-200, manufactured by the appellant, are chargeable to excise duty as 'patent or proprietary medicines' under Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Excise Tariff) or the said products are exempted from excise duty under Notification No. 6/84 dated February 15, 1984, as animal feed supplement?
Held that:- The appellant, in substance, wants that because other producers have been granted exemption, though wrongly, the same exemption should be extended to it. In our opinion this is impermissible. The appellant cannot obtain such an exemption in disregard of the law by invoking the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. Against assessee.
....
|
