|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 305 Records
-
1994 (12) TMI 294
... ...
... ... ..... Khushboo Builders (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 374/93) 7. State v. K.N. Tak Company (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 449/94) 8. State v. Jai Builders (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 405/94) 9. State v. Abdul Rasheet (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 450/94) 10. State v. Barkat Ulla Khan (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 406/94) 11. State v. Bhumika Traders (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 466/93) 12. State v. C.P. Chawla (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 272/94) 13. State v. Tansukh Lal (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 710/94) 14. State v. Ram Builders (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 332/94) 15. State v. Navin Enterprises (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 451/94) 16. State v. Vijendra Singh (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 452/94) 17. State v. Harish Agarwal (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 458/94) 18. State v. Bansal Enterprises (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 506/93) 19. State v. Vardi Chand (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 457/94) 20. State v. D.B. Contractors (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 370/93) 21. State v. Parma Ram (D.B.C. Special Appeal No. 396/94)
-
1994 (12) TMI 293
Valves - Imported motorised valves ... ... ... ... ..... ith all the valve auxiliary switches wired in parallel, any zone calling for heat can operate the circulator. When the call for heat ends, the valve closes by integral spring return. The auxiliary switch contacts break the circulator circuit. rdquo 7. emsp Thus, the findings of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) that ldquo the imported motorised valves therefore should have been assessed to CVD under Item 68 of CET rdquo , could not be faulted. It is also seen that the appellants had themselves canvassed the classification of the goods in question under Item No. 68 of the Excise Tariff, that their contention had been accepted by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and that they had already got the consequential refund of Rs. 2,89,882.10 from the Department. In the circumstances, we consider this appeal as an instance of avoidable litigation. 8. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 292
Investigation of company affairs in other cases ... ... ... ... ..... the Central Government to take such consequent action as deemed fit depending upon the result of the said investigation. Ms. Balajayashree, learned counsel representing the petitioners, at the time of delivery of the judgment, has apprised me that W.P. No. 20440 of 1994, has been filed by the petitioners in this court impugning the proceedings of the Registrar of Companies dated November 2, 1994, and that the operation of the said order has been suspended by this court. She also states that another WPMP No. 25890 of 1994, has been filed seeking permission to the petitioners to hold the annual general meeting and that the same is pending. I refrain from making any comments with regard to the institution of the said writ petition or the interim order passed, as also the pendency of the WPMP and it is for the concerned learned judge to deal with the same. So far as this company petition is concerned, the same is finally disposed of with the directions mentioned above. No costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 291
Winding up – Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... ble, proceedings for their summary ejectment shall be initiated against them. This lenient view in favour of the tenants is being taken in view of the fact that the tenants do not know whether the official liquidator has obtained the sanction of the court or not, but it is manifest that the official liquidator has exercised the jurisdiction which does not vest in him and while inducting the tenants has not cared for the interest of the company by fixing meagre amounts of rent. The Department may take suitable action against the then official liquidator whosoever he may be. For the purposes of notices, the matter is disposed of finally as per the aforesaid directions. It is further directed that in the case of other tenants also, the lease of which has been given by the official liquidator, the matter may be placed before the court on the next date of hearing and after hearing the parties further action shall be decided. The list be kept in the sealed cover and not separately.
-
1994 (12) TMI 281
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... vents mentioned above, a fresh look at the desirability of admitting the company petition is to be taken. The company court could, therefore, consider the matter afresh in the light of the above events. For that purpose we propose to set aside the order and remit the matter before the learned single judge. We accordingly do so. A point has been raised for the respondent that it cannot receive the monies already deposited or the monies, if any, to be deposited in future, without permission of the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant and the respondent shall, within four weeks from today, take steps to seek the permission of the Reserve Bank of India for the purpose of enabling the respondent to withdraw the amounts already deposited or to be deposited in this company case and shall inform the company court about the steps so taken. We accordingly set aside the order and remit the matter to the learned single judge for disposal in accordance with law. Appeal stands disposed of.
-
1994 (12) TMI 275
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... d, the same is not applicable to the respondent-company. It is, therefore, not open to the respondent-company to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to file proceedings for winding up inasmuch as the proceedings for winding up is not in respect of Kapil Agro Limited, but it is in respect of the amalgamated company. However, so far as the petition is concerned, in the light of my above discussion on the aspect that the petitioners have not been in a position to prove that the respondent-company is unable to pay its debts and in the light of the arguments advanced that the liability to pay was under the scheme which was a package deal in respect of which the respondent-company was liable to pay the amount over a period of time, so far as the unsecured creditors are concerned, as per annexure 5 the liability would be cleared off by 1997-98. So far as the petitioners are concerned, the petition is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed. Certified copy expedited.
-
1994 (12) TMI 274
... ...
... ... ..... d to person to abide by the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made. The complainant is not, therefore, entitled to claim the shares or the difference in price or compensation from the opposite party as this is a wagering contract which is void in law. 12. However, the complainant is entitled to get back the amount of advance paid by him on the principle of quantum meruit or money had and received and again on the principle of unjust enrichment. The opposite party must, therefore, refund the sum of Rs. 62,100 received from the complainant with interest thereon at 18 per cent from the date of Ex. A2, namely, 1 -10-1993 till payment. 13. In the result, we order as follows 1. The opposite party shall refund to the complainant the sum of Rs. 62,100 with interest thereon at 18 per cent from 1-10-1993 till payment. 2.All other claims made by the complainant are disallowed. 3.parties are directed to bear the respective costs. Complaint partly allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 262
Commission - Powers of, Restrictive trade practices ... ... ... ... ..... acie. 18. Similarly, we do not see prima facie the presence of any element of deception, false representation or unfair practice on the part of the respondent-company. Mere refusal to transfer shares because of certain objection received or procedural problem cannot automatically secure any conclusion of deception, unfairness or false representation and certainly not manipulation. 19. While we do hold that a remedy under the Act is invocable even if an alternative remedy is available, the gate for the former remedy will be open only if on the facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant provisions of the Act are attracted. On the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that prima facie the relevant provisions of the Act are not attracted. We see no reason to amend or revoke the decision of this Commission communicated in our letter dated 27-1-1994 in IA No. 7 of 1994. 20. The application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (12) TMI 261
Annual Return – Penalty for not filing, Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... ed that the company was required to place the balance-sheet on June 30, 1986, and not later than July 29, 1986, which was the date when the period of 30 days ended after the annual general meeting whereas default was made in July, 1986. The launching of a complaint after several years is a factor which goes against the complainant. In order to support this contention, reliance has been placed on Shivalik Ice Factory and Cold Storage P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies 1988 64 Comp. Cas. 113 1988 2 Recent CR 24. Similarly, the institution of the complaint after more than six months was barred by limitation inasmuch as the offences were punishable with fine and such complaints could have been filed only within a period of six months as provided in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The conclusion is that the petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure succeed and the complaints and the subsequent proceeding qua the two petitioners are hereby quashed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 247
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... is earlier. Therefore, in the light of the evidence on record about the payment of duty and also of differential duty for the inputs in question by the suppliers of the appellants consequent on revised classification and the receipt of the certificate in regard to the same by the appellants, we are inclined to think that the issue, which has not been examined in this perspective, will have to be remanded for reconsideration. The learned DR at this stage intervened to submit that the appellants rsquo eligibility to MODVAT credit should also be directed to be considered subject to the bar of limitation of 6 months under law either for taking credit or taking enhanced credit on grounds of variation under Rule 57E. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original authority for re-consideration of the issue afresh in accordance with law after affording the appellants a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1994 (12) TMI 246
... ...
... ... ..... f cannot be taken as basis since the larger quantity imported by the appellants against the smaller quantity imported by other importers. The above telex clearly indicates that price offered for 100 M.T. is not applicable to smaller quantity. There is no evidence to show that similar quantity or substantial quantity was imported by other importers at higher price and in the circumstances, an isolated import imported by other importer, that too small quantity 3 M.T. as against 100 M.T. cannot be considered to be a comparable goods. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence and since the goods are not compared with that of comparable goods in all respects at the relevant point of time and taking into consideration that difference in price is about 50 Dollars in between larger quantity and smaller quantity imported by other importers, we do not find any justification to reject transaction value. In the view we have taken, these two appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1994 (12) TMI 243
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... of the inputs and arrive at a conclusion whether they fall under the excluded categories of inputs. It is purely hypothetical for the department to assume that a particular input is of an excluded category. He, therefore, submits that questions raised not being questions of law do not require to be referred to the High Court of Patna. Reference Application, he submits, be rejected. 8. emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced by both sides. I find that full declaration of the inputs had been made under the declaration submitted by the Respondents. Whether a particular lsquo input rsquo is of an excluded category in terms of Rule 57A depends on the facts of each case. In other words, it will, in each case, be appreciation of facts/evidence. It is well settled that appreciation of facts/evidence is not a question of law. Hence, I hold that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 6-7-1994. 9. emsp Reference Application is, therefore, rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 242
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... the present case the sample of invoices clearly bear an undertaking by the respondents that drum deposit will be re- funded if the drum is returned intact back to the plant on freight pre-paid basis. The Assistant Collector in his order has found as a fact that as and when buyer chose to return the packing, the respondents accept the same and return the deposit money. In such a situation, both the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) had considered the right criteria as laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard to hold that the drums in this case fall under the category of durable and returnable packing and the drums deposit in the cir- cumstances of this case cannot form part of the assessable value in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. There is thus no reason to in- terfere with the order passed by the lower authorities. The appeal is accordingly rejected. Operative portion of the order was announced in Court on 15-12-1994.
-
1994 (12) TMI 241
... ...
... ... ..... seen from the records that the appellant had arrived in India on 6-4-1991. It is not acceptable that the appellant would get a receipt for the date other than the date when he entrusted the baggage to the forwarding agent and paid for the same. The receipt, in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be accepted. Further it is seen that most of the baggage items on examination are found to be new and also no purchase receipt for the purchase of the goods have been produced. This circumstance also goes against the appellant. The appellant has to established while claiming clearance of baggage that the items in fact belong to him more so when the baggage has been despatched much after the permissible period. Time limit for despatch of baggage has been fixed so that the cover of the passengers who arrive India is not used by others for getting goods. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order of the learned lower authority and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 240
Refund/Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... mbay Custom House is not binding on this Custom House. In the absence of survey/ascertainment of weight landed in the presence of Customs Officer, the claim is rejected rdquo . The issue requires to be examined in the light of the pleas made by the appellants that the quantities were short delivered to them and the evidence put forth by them should have gone into and the appellant rsquo s plea considered in the light of Section 3 of the Customs Act. This having not been done, I hold that the learned lower authority rsquo s order is not proper and maintainable in law. The orders are therefore set aside and remanded to the learned original authority for de novo consideration in the light of the above and after affording the appellants opportunity of hearing. The appeals are therefore allowed by reasons. After the pronouncement of order, the learned Consultant pleaded that a similar issue is involved in Appeal No. C/119/94/MAS. The same may therefore also be listed for disposal.
-
1994 (12) TMI 239
... ...
... ... ..... These arguments had found acceptance. The present appellants rsquo explanation is also on these lines. The show cause notice also mentions that the appellants had submitted price list with the remark that the zone-wise price has been arrived at after taking into account the freight element and market condition. There is also no charge that the price differential was due to any extra-commercial consideration, but the show cause notice alleges that such pricing is not permissible under provisions of Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act. Therefore, following the ratio of the decisions cited (supra), it has to be held that the zonal prices declared by the appellants herein in the facts and circumstances of these cases, will be in accordance with provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the wholesale dealers in each zone can, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be considered as different classes of buyers. These appeals are, therefore, allowed.
-
1994 (12) TMI 238
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he under declaration. As rightly pointed out by the learned SDR the appellants had subscribed to a declaration in the bill of entry vouchsafing the value declared which in fact was not correct. In the face of the above, the appellant cannot escape the blame for non-declaration of the correct value. In this view of the matter, goods have to be held to be confiscable under Section 111(m) and appellants liable to penalty. However, taking into consideration the value under declared, according to the learned Consultant, was about Rs. 3.00 lakhs, I hold that the redemption fine of Rs. 50,000 cannot be considered as excessive. So far as the levy of penalty is concerned, taking into consideration the findings of the learned Collector wherein he has not upheld the findings of mala fides against the appellants, I hold that ends of justice would be served if the penalty is reduced to Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand). But, for the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1994 (12) TMI 237
Molasses - Stock-taking of molasses ... ... ... ... ..... f the appellants that weight obtained through volumetric basis particularly when volume will depend on temperature and steam would not always be accurate. The very fact that excess weight finally determined through actual weighment when the tanks in past were drained and charged to duty would also indicate that ultimately it is actual weighment on which duty is paid that is reliable. The Additional Collector refer even to 5.85 Mtr. and 6.10 Mtr. as allowance which has already been given is explained by the fact that State Excise Authorities on 26-3-1990 took the dip and found it to be 5.85 Mtr. whereas on 24-3-1990, the appellants submit it was 6.10 Mtr. and in between there was no clearance. This by itself would indicate that the extent of variation which can take place. Considering all these factors I am satisfied that in view of the nature of the commodity and the method adoped the charge of excess cannot be sustained. I therefore, set aside the Order and allow the appeal.
-
1994 (12) TMI 236
... ...
... ... ..... mpany was confirmed by the Supreme Court. It has been specifically pleaded before us that it was only an option and this activity was undertaken by the party whenever the customer specifically asked for it and not otherwise. Since this aspect was not looked into by the Adjudicating Authority and in the absence of clear finding, we are of the view that this issue requires reconsideration since identical issue has already been remanded by the Tribunal as submitted by the learned Departmental Representative. This limited issue in all these appeals may be looked into by the concerned Assistant Collector and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the party. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) on both the issues in all these appeals. 7. emsp Thus, these appeals and Cross Objections filed by the Party in Appeal Nos. E/5714, 92A and 5715/92A are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1994 (12) TMI 235
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... f 50 itself was delayed beyond the date prescribed by the Supreme Court. Hence at that point of time itself, the deptt. could have refused to allow further instalments and recover the entire amount with the interest due thereon. In view of this position, the payment of interest for the entire amount outstanding by the appellant cannot be said to be a wrong payment. Moreover, there is also a default in making the instalment due on 30th December,1984. Once they have obtained Supreme Court rsquo s orders, they are expected to make the deposit strictly in accordance with those orders and if they cannot do it, they are to move the Supreme Court for extending the time limit. The deptt. authorities have no option but to insist on the interest payment in accordance with the Supreme Court rsquo s direction. In this case since the initial down payment itself is delayed, the entire amount attracts interest. I therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and is, therefore, dismissed.2
........
|
