|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 280 Records
-
1996 (6) TMI 316 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Adhiniyam, could not be treated as part of the turnover of purchases. 7.. Now reverting to the facts of this case the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the market cess was not collected by the dealer/agent as part of the consideration either by virtue of any agreement between them and the purchaser and that the purchaser was under a statutory obligation to pay market cess for making purchases of agricultural produce in the market area and that the dealer collected the market cess payable by the purchaser for and on behalf of the market committee as its agent as provided under rule 74(4) of the Rules. In view of the above finding the essential requisite of the test, viz., the tax should have been included as consideration and passed on to the purchaser, is not satisfied. That being so the market cess cannot be treated as part of turnover. We, therefore, find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal the T.R.Cs. are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 315 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he 1954 Act, their orders are liable to be quashed. In this connection, it is noted that the applicant has claimed that the earlier unit whose assets were purchased by the applicant, i.e., M/s. Diamond Freezing Complex Pvt. Ltd. never claimed any exemption under section 8-1 of the 1954 Act and that this point has also been conceded by the respondents. 18.. In the result, the application is allowed. The orders dated June 30, 1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated September 13, 1995 passed by the respondent No. 3 are set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to issue eligibility certificate to the applicant within a fortnight from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to cost. On the verbal prayer of the learned State Representative which is opposed by the applicant s learned advocate, operation of this judgment and order is stayed for eight weeks hence. 19.. L.N. RAY (Chairman).-I agree. 20. J. GUPTA (Judicial Member).-I agree. Application allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 314 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the trade. We cannot ignore the geographical situation of the State. Should a transport agency be allowed to carry taxable goods for which no permit was obtained? 42.. We are, therefore, of opinion that provisions of the sections and rules which have been challenged are regulatory measures merely to check evasion of tax and interruption caused to the carrying vehicles for the purpose of checking whether tax is being evaded or not, does not amount to impeding of free-flow of trade. In our considered view the provisions of law contemplated under sections 29 and 32 of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, are applicable in case of transporters. The State Legislature is competent enough to frame/make such rules mentioned above under entry No. 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 43.. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs. N.S. SINGH, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 313 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... tion Tribunal Act and the establishment of this Tribunal. The question that arose was whether as a consequence, the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court with respect to matters arising under the CST Act stood ousted in the same manner and to the same extent as had occurred with respect to specified State Acts? My answer is that with respect to matters arising under the CST Act the coming into force of the RTT Act could not have affected the jurisdiction of the High Court. The question of this Tribunal acquiring jurisdiction under section 7 (revision/reference) or section 8 (extraordinary jurisdiction) in matters arising under the CST Act does not and cannot arise, the provisions of section 9(2) of the CST Act notwithstanding. As a consequence if in the matters listed in the cause title only CST is involved, we have no jurisdiction, if an element of RST is involved we are free to decide that aspect leaving the parties free to approach the High Court for the CST component.
-
1996 (6) TMI 312 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce available in law, the issuance of notice giving him reasonable opportunity to file his defence is a pre-requisite. Such a mandatory requirement has been overlooked by the respondent before collecting the penalty. A Division Bench of this Court in Annam Jewellers v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1996 102 STC 506 (1996) 22 APSTJ 135 took the same view holding that collection of tax under section 6-A and penalty thereon without giving any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary. In these circumstances, we have no option but to declare that the collection of penalty of Rs. 30,600 from the petitioner by the respondent is illegal and arbitrary and issue direction to the respondent to refund the same. A writ shall be issued accordingly. We make it clear that this order of ours will not preclude the authority from taking steps to collect penalty in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 311 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... artment within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. With it fails to the ground the order dated January 8, 1996 which was addressed to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, requesting them not to make payment to the petitionercompany, order dated February 16, 1996, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-company under section 38 of the RST Act was dismissed and the order dated February 26, 1996, whereby the petitioner-company was directed to deposit the amount of tax together with the interest thereon with the department. The respondent is directed to proceed with the matter and decide the matter afresh. Any observation consciously or unconsciously made in the judgment shall not in any way whatever fetter the discretion of the respondent in the decision of the matter before him in the light of the facts and relevant provisions of the law bearing upon them. R.K. NAIR (Technical Member).-I concur with the honourable Judicial Member.
-
1996 (6) TMI 310 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to nonmaintenance and passed orders in regard thereto. Independently also it is not possible to accept the submission that the rules are directory in nature when the rule makes provision for so many details in regard thereto. 13.. Consistent view of the three authorities is that manufacturing account in regard to the furniture production has not been maintained at all not to speak of any details in regard thereto. In view of this position, the manufacture of furniture being the only item much of the amount liable to sales tax has not appeared before the authority and the authorities could not be considered to be in error in any manner in exercising powers under section 17 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act proposing estimated total and taxable turnover and acting upon it in consequence. The factual material shows that powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act cannot be exercised. Revision case stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (6) TMI 309 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e departments concerned, Department of Law and such other officials as it may deem proper. Every dispute of any of the categories enumerated above shall be referred to the Committee at the instance of any of the parties to the dispute. Within six months from the date of request, the Committee shall consider and take a decision, after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. It shall render its decision in writing recording reasons in support thereof. It would be appropriate if a nodal body is set up to adjudicate inter-departmental dispute more particularly revenue matters. That would avoid unnecessary expenses, and litigation which would be ultimately in the interest of the State. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be handed over to Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Standing Counsel (Commercial Taxes) and a copy of the same be given to learned counsel for the State. A. DEB, J.-I agree. Writ application disposed of accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 308 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB
... ...
... ... ..... the capital goods is different than the coverage of the inputs. A number of goods have been specifically included in the meaning of the capital goods for the purposes of the scheme under Section AAAA of the Rules. It is seen that the scheme under Rule 57Q is not akin to the scheme under Rule 57A and that it had no bearing on the interpretation of Rule 57A. 48. emsp In so far as the use of copper wire in the process of manufacture of metal containers is concerned, the situation is different. The copper wire is not a part of the machinery, but is used by the machinery in relation to the manufacture of the metal containers. I, therefore, agree with the conclusions drawn with regard to the copper wire being an admissible input. Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 49. emsp Appeals are disposed of as indicated in paragraph 30 according to the majority view. Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) 14-6-1996 Sd/- (K.S. Venkataramani) Member (T) 14-6-1996 Sd/- (U.L. Bhat) President 14-6-1996
-
1996 (6) TMI 307 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Copper products - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... predominant. The Tribunal took note of circular issued by the Government of India as per No. 138/8/81-CX-IV, dated 24-2-1982 while coming to its conclusion. In the case of Bama Metal Industries v. Collector of Customs 1996 (82) E.L.T. 81 , the benefit of Notification No. 178/88-C.E., dated 13-5-88 was extended to copper sheets and circles made out of prescribed inputs in admixture with other ingredients such as zinc, use of which is a technological necessity. The above judgments have been rendered in the context of similarly worded notifications. Hence following the ratio thereof, we hold that the products in question are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 54/62, dated 24-4-1962 as amended, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Since we have allowed the claim on merits, we are not required to go into the other arguments of the demand being partially time-barred and the alternate claim of the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 31/65 as amended.
-
1996 (6) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... nsions and that it was quite clear that such goods could not be classified as plates, sheets, etc., under Item No. 16A(2) of the Excise Tariff Schedule. There is no dispute that the goods arise in the course of manufacture of transmission and conveyor beltings as a result of cutting of the edges of the beltings. They are of uneven width and dimensions. They cannot but be referred to as waste material arising in the course of manufacture of beltings. The fact that they may find some use and fetch a price is not sufficient justification to hold that they are the result of manufacture resulting in excisable goods. The ratio of the Delhi High Court rsquo s judgment in the Modi Rubber Ltd. case (supra) is, in our opinion, squarely applicable to the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. 5. emsp The operative part of this order was pronounced in the Court on the conclusion of the hearing.
-
1996 (6) TMI 305 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... the GP was held to be a legal document for clearance of the goods upto 1-4-94 the restriction as to the period upto which the Modvat credit could be taken on the GPs would appear to be not fair to the assessee as in same case goods could be held over in transit for various reasons. Rule 57G authorises the Board to prescribe the document which would be valid document for taking Modvat credit and it does not appear to authorise the authorities to say that these documents could be valid only upto a particular date. 7. emsp We are supported in our view by the judgment of the Supreme Court cited by the learned Counsel in the case of STO v. K.I. Abraham cited supra. In that view of the matter, we hold that the appellants could not be denied the benefit of Modvat credit which is for the reason that the goods were received in the factory under the gate pass which was issued prior to 1-4-94 when the goods had directly come to the appellants from the manufacturer. We order accordingly.
-
1996 (6) TMI 304 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... ef that the goods being parts of old machinery could not benefit from the Ministry rsquo s order, is not sustainable. In such a situation the ratio of the judgment of the Larger Bench cited will apply and that is where there exists a conditional exemption the assessee has sufficiently discharged the burden by claiming the benefit of the deemed credit order and it is for the Department to disprove it. The original order does not perform this job as it proceeds on the assumption of the nature of the scrap without any documentary evidence to show that the scrap was in that form. I find that the Collector has also merely reiterated and confirmed the findings of the original authority. 7. emsp In the result, the order of reversal of Modvat credit or in the alternative of confirmation of demands made by the original authority and upheld of the Collector (Appeals) does not survive. This appeal is allowed. With disposal of the final appeal the stay application also stand disposed of.
-
1996 (6) TMI 303 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Reference to Arbitration ... ... ... ... ..... hat suit of the plaintiff was filed on 26-4-1993 after the petitioners themselves had invoked arbitration clause by their letter dated 30-3-1993 and had also appointed their arbitrators by their letter dated 26-3-1993. In that letter, the petitioners have inter alia stated thus Now therefore in pursuance of the said Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations, I, J.K. Seth, the applicants abovenamed do hereby nominate and appoint Shri M. Rajasekaran a member of the Madras Stock Exchange Ltd., Madras to be the Arbitrators on my behalf . Petitioners having sought arbitration, nominated an arbitrator and after having participated in the proceedings are seeking to nullify the arbitra- tion proceedings without any justification. 26. Having regard to all the circumstances of case, this is a fit case where costs should be awarded against the petitioners. 27. Application Nos. 4972 to 4977 and 3832 to 3837 of 1993 as also O.Ps. 425 to 430 are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000. SCL q JUNE 20, 1999
-
1996 (6) TMI 296 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period ... ... ... ... ..... e Court in the case of M/s. Padmini Products v. CCE reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (S.C.). 12. emsp It is thus seen that the ingredients postulate a positive act and failure to pay duty or failure to mention any fact is not necessarily due to any wilful suppression. But the facts narrated above clearly goes to show that the appellant from the beginning was acting on a bona fide belief and he had been corresponding with the authorities concerned and in terms of their letters he was under the belief that he remained a SSI unit. In the case cited by the learned Counsel, the circumstances were similar to this case. In such circumstances, the extended period cannot be invoked in this case. Therefore, we are of the view that the demand is barred by limitation. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. Since the demand itself is barred by limitation, the impugned orders are hereby set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1996 (6) TMI 288 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... bjection, accordingly, has no force. Regarding the third objection, it is obvious that delisting can be done with the approval of the stock exchanges and cannot be done by the petitioner-company unilaterally. This is given only as information to the sharehold- ers and is not a part of the scheme. Similarly, the fourth objection also regarding the purchase by the managing director of the shares is also more by way of information to the shareholders and is not an essential condition of the scheme. Thus, the third and fourth objections also fail. 5. In view of the approval of the scheme by an overwhelming majority of the shareholders of the petitioner-company and of the major secured creditors, the proposed scheme is confirmed subject to confirmation by the Bombay High Court on the application filed by the NPIL. The effective date shall be 1-4-1995. A copy of the scheme shall be attached to this order. 6. The company petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. SCL q OCTOBER, 1997
-
1996 (6) TMI 287 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... claim is not consistent or definite and accordingly the claim of the petitioner for winding up is negatived. Before parting with the case, I have to observe that the petition ought not to have been numbered by the registry as it is not in conformity with rule 21 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which requires that in the case of a petition presented by a body corporate, it has to be verified by an affidavit in Form No. 3 signed by a director or secretary or other, principal officer and that permission of the court has to be taken if any other person has to file the affidavit. The petition as well as the affidavit has been signed by one Prakash Purushotham Naik, who is the marketing manager. Registry has not noticed it. No doubt, this is a technical defect and had it been pointed out earlier, the petitioner would have filed a petition for leave in that behalf. Hence, I do not propose to rest the dismissal on this technical ground. Company petition is dismissed with costs.
-
1996 (6) TMI 276 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
EXIM Policy - DEEC Scheme - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... esiding within the jurisdiction but shown to be concerned with the smuggling. The context was in the case of smuggled gold which is different from the context of the import under DEEC Scheme. On the other hand, we are of the view that the decision of the Tribunal on jurisdiction in the context of DEEC Scheme cited and referred to supra are applicable to the facts of the present case. We apply the ratio of the decisions to the present case and accordingly we hold that the jurisdiction for taking action for demand of duty short-levied under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 with reference to the original assessment under DEEC Scheme will more properly lie with the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, and not with the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. We make it clear that our decision is only on the question of jurisdiction and we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
-
1996 (6) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... r halide films, he has pleaded that these are used for image transfer for the formation of circuits and thus being not in the nature of apparatus, appliances or machinery, etc. which are excluded items under the explanation to Rule 57A, the benefit of the same should be allowed. 6. emsp Heard the learned DR. 7. emsp We observe that these films are stated to be capable of repetitive use. However, in similar circumstances, where the release paper in the case of manufacture of the ........ where the paper is capable of repetitive use we have allowed the benefit of Modvat credit. Here the use of the film is a technical necessity in the manufacture of printed circuit boards and the Modvat credit has to be allowed. We order accordingly. 8. emsp So far as aluminium slurry and diamond paste are concerned, since the use of the same is a technical necessity for the manufacture of printed circuit boards, the Modvat credit is allowed. 9. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1996 (6) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... order of the learned lower authority. We observe that the learned lower authority has entered findings on facts as to whether the item can be considered as label or not. The Collector (Appeals) has not examined the issue in the context of the discussion as to why the appellants item would not fall within the purview of Notification No. 228/86. A mere observation that the position has not been explained satisfactorily is not enough. The learned lower authority should have discussed the issue in the context of the findings of the learned original authority and then only entered a finding as to whether the goods will answer to the description of label or not taking into consideration of the plea of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the learned lower authority cannot be said to be proper order. We, therefore, set aside the same and remand the matter to the learned lower appellate authority for de novo consideration in regard to this aspect.
........
|
