|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 338 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 352
REBATE — COTTON YARN SOLD FOR USE IN MANUFACTURE OF CLOTH - CONDITION FOR GRANT OF CONCESSION MANDATORY
-
1996 (11) TMI 338
Whether the taxing provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act and the bye-laws made thereunder, permitted the Puri Municipal Council to charge octroi tax on a non-fisherman merely found in possession of fish and prawn within the municipal area, or while taking them out through exit points, or octroi posts?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court in this fact situation properly saw through the matter and, in our view, afforded appropriate relief to the respondent, throwing out the specious plea of the appellant- municipality based on the fact that it was not in a position to put up octroi posts at every conceivable point alongside the sea shore. That aspect is the concern of the municipality and not that of the subject. If the words in the taxing statute fail, the tax must fail, without sentiment playing any role.
-
1996 (11) TMI 332
Transfer to shares – Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal ... ... ... ... ..... substituting the name of the plaintiff by amending the register of its shareholders and showing this plaintiff to be the holder of these shares. Similarly, Civil Suit No. 2 of 1973 of Shir B.K. Malhan is also decreed and it is declared that he is the owner of 2,230 ordinary shares and sixty four preferential shares of defendant No. 1-company and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to hand over all shares certificates in relation to these shares to this plaintiff. In case the name of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 or any other person has been substituted in respect of these shares, than defendant No. 1 is commanded by a decree of mandatory injunction to amend its register of shareholders and show the name of the plaintiff to be the rightful owner of these shares. In both Civil Suits Nos. 1 and 2 of 1973, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are restrained from transferring and/or alienating as well as encumbering any of the property of defendant No. 1-company in any manner. Costs on the parties.
-
1996 (11) TMI 331
Winding up – Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... Mr. Agrawal is reasonable. The payment may be made by demand draft as stated by Mr. Agrawal by November 13, 1996. Regarding the claim for interest, I consider that the liability itself is disputed and there appears to be a bona fide dispute. I would not like to say more as it is open to the petitioner to file a civil suit even with regard to the liability of the interest, if any. In the proceedings for winding up if the amount is disputed one and has not been paid then the direction for winding up of the company cannot be given. In these circumstances, if the payment as agreed by Mr. Agrawal is made by November 13, 1996, it would not be considered that the company has neglected the payment so that the order for winding up be passed. The payment be made by November 13, 1996. If the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be free to move even this court for necessary orders. All the above company petitions are disposed of with the above directions.
-
1996 (11) TMI 321
Shares certificate – Limitation of time for issue of certificate ... ... ... ... ..... cting this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. It has next been contended that Shri P.C. Chako is not the managing director of petitioner No. 1-bank and, as such, the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against him. In the complaint as well as in the statement made in support thereof, the respondent has described petitioner No. 2 as the managing director of petitioner No. 1-bank. There was no reason for the learned Judicial Magistrate, not to have believed the allegations in this regard, mentioned in the complaint, specially when, they were supported in the statement, made by the respondent under section 200 of the Code, and at the stage of issuing summonses, the learned Judicial Magistrate had to go on the evidence before him and having summoned petitioner No. 2, cannot be said to have committed any error. No other point has been raised before me. Finding this petition to be without any force, I dismiss it. It stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 318
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... I hold that the petitions are maintainable. Coming to the merits of the scheme, the shareholders of both the companies have approved the scheme and the auditors have given a certificate that the assets and liabilities of the transferor company have been taken at book value, as on March 8, 1995, and that the transferee company paid consideration of Rs. 55,00,000 in cash to the transferor company. In view of this, the scheme is approved. However, it is made clear that the question whether the transfer attracts income-tax and stamp duty and whether a regular sale deed is necessary are not necessary to decide in this proceeding and are left open. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The order be communicated to the Registrar of Companies within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The transferor company shall stand dissolved with effect from March 8, 1995. Any shareholder may move this court for modification of the scheme if found necessary. No costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 317
Meetings and Proceedings – Company Law Board’s power to call annual general meeting ... ... ... ... ..... he races for which the accounts have been maintained. In fact in the annual general meeting held on September 25, 1996, the first agenda of the business was to receive, consider and adopt the profit and loss account for the year ended March 31, 1996, and the balance-sheet as on that date and also the reports of the committee of management and auditors thereon. In the said meeting, the accounts, as submitted by the committee of management in its report, had been passed unanimously. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Vasudevan, also fairly conceded that as a member of the club, the respondent is interested in the welfare of the appellant club and now that the annual general meeting had been convened, and the accounts had been passed, it is more than sufficient compliance with the direction issued by the Company Law Board and he does not want to pursue the matter. For the reasons stated above, the appeal shall stand allowed, setting aside the order of the Company Law Board.
-
1996 (11) TMI 316
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... nd 3 to the detriment of the company. But, there is no proof for these allegations. Unless there is proof for these allegations as per Needle Industries (India) Ltd. rsquo s case (supra), increase in capital cannot be considered as oppression. 14. Once it is clear that section 397 or 398 cannot be invoked, the direction given by the learned trial judge cannot stand. Even otherwise, the said direction is in more than one respect not a lawful one as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in para 4(g) above. It is also vague as pointed out by the same learned counsel. 15. In the view we have taken, there is no necessity to deal with the contention relating to mala fides. 16. In the result, this original side appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the company petition shall stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. C.M.P. Nos. 12234 and 12673 of 1996 are consequently dismissed. SCL q OCTOBER, 1997
-
1996 (11) TMI 301
Effect of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the present case on the arbitration agreement made prior to the commencement of the New Act.
Held that:- There is no dispute that the arbitral proceeding in the present case commenced after the New Act came into force and, therefore, the New Act applies. In view of the term in the arbitration agreement that the two arbitrators would appoint the umpire or the third arbitrator before proceeding with the reference, the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 10 is satisfied and subjection (2) thereof has no application. As earlier stated, the agreement satisfies the requirement of section 7 and, therefore, is a valid arbitration agreement. The appoint- ment of arbitrators must, therefore, be governed by section 11.
Thus direct that the Chief Justice of the High Court is to appoint the third arbitrator under section 11(4)(b) in view of the failure of the two appointed arbitrators to appoint the third arbitrator within thirty days from the date of their appointments.
-
1996 (11) TMI 294
Scrap arising during course of manufacture of tungsten wire ... ... ... ... ..... he A.C. may be directed to re-classify the scrap arising during the course of manufacture of tungsten wire, molybdenum wire, filament, etc., under T.I. 68. 3. emsp Ld. Counsel submitted that the material in question is in the nature of waste material of no commercial value and the fact that such material is not excisable or dutiable had come up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Resistance Alloys (I) Ltd. reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 507 (Tri.) and in the case of M/s. Navsari Processing Industries reported in 1996 (85) E.L.T. 386 (Tri.). It is therefore a settled issue and may be considered accordingly. 4. emsp We have considered the above submissions. We find that the ld. Counsel is correct and the issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal rsquo s decisions in the case of M/s. Resistance Alloys and Navsari Processing (Supra). We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Collector (Appeals). The department rsquo s appeal is therefore rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 286
Reference to Supreme Court when conflicting views between High Courts ... ... ... ... ..... High Court. 8. emsp In view of the above facts it is clear that there are conflicting views between the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court and the Hon rsquo ble Kerala High Court in this regard. In the premises we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter will have to be resolved by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and it is expected that the reference application should be made to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court through the Hon rsquo ble President of the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, we refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court through the Hon rsquo ble President, CEGAT, New Delhi ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the findings of the Tribunal that the applicant is liable to pay interest under the provisions of Section 61 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 with respect to the warehoused goods cleared after overstay in the warehouse free of customs duty is right? rdquo
-
1996 (11) TMI 276
Appeal by Department - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... annot be considered as sufficient cause for condonning the delay. Besides, there is also no explanation as to the delay or inaction on the part of the concerned Collector during the days when he was in office. When the Collector himself has stated in the affidavit that the issue was important with all India remifications, it was all the more necessary that the officers concerned realised the urgency and importance of the matter and the consequences of not filing the appeal in time. 19. emsp In the light of the above discussions, we find no merit in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad pursuant to the direction given by the Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court by its order dated 19-12-1995. The condonation of delay application is accordingly rejected. Consiquently Appeal No. E/1833/93-C filed by CCE, Hyderabad is also rejected. Consequently Appeal No. E/1833/93-C filed by CCE, Hyderabad is also rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 269
Blower - Use of power - Processed cotton fabrics - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of the above, we are also satisfied that, even if the appellants were using power operated stirrer for preparation of cooking recipe, their non-declaration of the same did not amount to suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, as the appellants were under the bona fide belief that such use would not amount to processing of fabrics with the aid of power. The case law cited by the learned DR is distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in none of those citations was there any question of bona fide belief on the part of the assessees while as already held above, in this case, the appellants rsquo bona fide belief was based upon the Nirma judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore, we agree with the appellants that the demand is barred by limitation and thus answer this point in favour of the assessees. 6. emsp In the result, the appeal succeeds both on merits and on limitation. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 265
Appeal - Additional ground ... ... ... ... ..... the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in the light of our observations above after affording opportunity of being heard to the appellants by observing principles of natural justice in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority should also take into consideration the decision of the Special Bench reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 464 and dispose of the matter in the light of the various decisions of the Tribunal wherein it has been laid down that consumption of electricity for production of tread rubber in the assessee rsquo s unit has to be one of the important basis, and also the norms fixed by the department for determining the quantum of production. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals by remand. It is open to the appellants to adduce all evidences as are available to them under law during the de novo proceedings.
-
1996 (11) TMI 260
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... t it is a question of satisfaction of the officers concerned regarding these particulars. There is otherwise legally no bar in acceptance thereof subject to verification. 12. emsp I therefore accept the appeal, but remand the matter back to the lower authorities for verification in r/o the bill of entry particularly about the fact of receipt of the goods inside the factory. Similarly, in the case of invoice-cum-challan, it is open to the authorities to satisfy themselves, if necessary, w.r.t. the gate pass and duty particulars shown on the photocopy of the invoice and challan produced here. In respect of the two consignments received on original invoice on 20-5-1994, since the matter is squarely covered by the Tribunal s order in the case of Bharat Ispat (supra), and the ld. Counsel also states that he has also filed the required affidavit and the necessary undertaking. The request is accepted. With these observations and findings the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (11) TMI 256
Valuation - Charity ... ... ... ... ..... ition of one per cent as charity. Lower authorities have held that one per cent collected as charity should be added to the assessable value. That such receipt shown in invoices will not form part of the normal price has been accepted by the Tribunal in Mohan and Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 624. This decision has been followed by us in number of other appeals. We, therefore, hold that one per cent collected for charity is not to be treated as part of the price for the purpose of addition to the assessable value. Impugned orders are accordingly set aside. Appeal is allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 254
Scrap - benefit of Notification No. 208/83. - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e notification states in no uncertain terms that stocks which are clearly recognised as non duty paid will be excluded from the general category of stocks in the country which are considered deemed to be inputs on which duty has already been paid. We do not find it possible to agree that against the clear statement of the provision in the Notification, the appellant came to a different conclusion by reading in the circular which has only an indirect bearing on the issue. After all, it could not but know that the goods were received directly from the shipbreakers, and that the appellant, being in the trade would have known that duty was not payable on re-rollable material. The claim that there was no intent to evade duty is difficult to accept in this background. Reliance on the Supreme court rsquo s judgment in Chemphar Drugs and Liniment 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) would not therefore come into the picture. 7. emsp We therefore decline to interfere. 8. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 253
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ade out of shapes and sections of aluminium by subjecting the same to the process like drilling holes or trimming to desired shapes etc., for being used as building materials would be classifiable under sub-heading 7610 of CET with effect from 1-3-1988, under sub-heading 7613.90 as rdquo other articles of aluminium from 1-3-1986 to 28-2-1988 and under Tariff Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff rdquo . 9. emsp Sub-heading No. 7613.90 covers other articles of aluminium. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the goods in question were not base metal mountings but were complete articles and that they were rightly classifiable under sub-heading No. 7613.90 of the tariff. Taking note of the nature of the goods and the relevant Tariff Entries we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). 10. emsp As a result the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objection is also disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 252
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... by the OGL entry before the period of limitation. When invited by us to indicate the existence of material such as enquiry with the manufacturer rsquo s correspondence etc. which would show that the appellant at least made efforts to satisfy itself the machine is covered by the OGL entry the advocate stated that he was instructed that no such material was available. There would be no dispute that the composition of the needles and the composition of drill bits would be substantially different. On considering the fact that the machine rsquo s primarily function is to grind the points of the needles it is therefore, not unreasonable to conclude that appellant knew that the machine was incapable of grinding drill bit points, or considered the possibility and chose not to verify the position. We are satisfied that imposition of penalty is justified. Taking into account the value of the goods we reduce the penalty from Rs. 3.00 lacs to Rs. 1.5 lacs. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1996 (11) TMI 251
Classification of goods under heading different from that claimed by both parties i.e. assessee and revenue
........
|
