|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 562
Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... 1 that they had been preparing invoices/gate passes bearing same Sl. No. on the basis of instructions/chits given by Shri Anil Mishra, Despatch Clerk, support his case, is not acceptable in view of the fact that copies of these statements were not provided to Appellant No. 1 despite request dated 21-8-95. On the other hand, the Deputy Director Anti Evasion vide letter dated 26-6-96, has categorically refused to give copies of these statements and therefore, they cannot be relied upon at this stage. 19. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the evidence on record is not sufficient for the purpose of upholding the charge of clandestine manufacture and clearance of pan masala by Appellant No. 1 and accordingly, we set aside the duty demand and the penalty imposed upon Appellant No. 1 and other appellants. In the result, the appeals filed by the Manufacturer, Transport Agencies and other co-noticees are allowed, while the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 561
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ation 175/86, are not attracted. The learned SDR, Shri A.K. Agarwal reiterates the findings contained in the impugned order. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We find that the Department has not controverted or rebutted the appellants lsquo claim that the monogram ldquo Yash rdquo belongs to them. In order to deny the benefit of SSI exemption, the Department will have to establish that the monogram lsquo Yash rdquo belongs to some one other than the appellant who claims the benefit of the SSI exemption. Use of ones own brand name, is not a bar to availment of benefit of SSI exemption. The Revenue has not discharged the burden of proving that the monogram ldquo Yash rdquo belongs to some other person who is not eligible to the grant of exemption under Notification 175/86, and, therefore, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Notification, set aside the impugned order of confirmation of duty demand and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 558
Suspension of legal proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... e effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law except the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This argument has also to be rejected. If the argument of the learned counsel is to be accepted then the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, offences involving when money is involved will stand excluded on account of the SICA. Take the present case. Under what provision is the Board rsquo s or Appellate Authority rsquo s permission required or must a person seeking to give information to the police of a cognizable offence have to first apply to the Board or Appellate Authority for permission to maintain the complaint. This would be reading something in the SICA which the express language does not provide for. In the light of that there is no substance in that contention. In the light of that there is no merit in this review application which is accordingly rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 557
Dishonour of cheques ... ... ... ... ..... ing them by the main accused Naresh Medical Agencies. It is in this background that the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act held that the complainant was unable to make out any case against the respondent-directors because there was merely a bald statement regarding the role of the directors. However, in the instant case, not only is there a statement of the complainant which fulfils the requirement of section 141, but there is a statement on oath of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, both these submissions made by Mr. Mundergi cannot be accepted, and consequently, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the order ORDER 14. All the petitions dismissed. Rule discharged in all the petitions, stay, if any, vacated. 15. If the petitioners who are residents of Calcutta, apply for exemption from personal appearance on the ground of their residence, the Magistrate shall consider their application sympathetically.
-
1998 (12) TMI 555
Suspension of legal proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... il nature or proceedings where recovery can be made by way of execution, distress or the like. It is, therefore, clear that where proceedings are not for recovery but are for violation of the provisions of law which would constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code such proceedings are not covered by section 22. In the light of that I find no merit in this application. 10. The learned counsel for the applicants, therefore, contends that in the event criminal proceedings are initiated the magistrate should be directed to enlarge the applicants on bail. Such a relief cannot be given in these proceedings. Suffice it to say that in the event the respondents proceed to file criminal proceedings against the applicants and seek their arrest they shall give 48 hours notice to the applicants to enable them to take appropriate proceedings including application for bail. 11. In the light of that rule discharged. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 546
Jig Boring Machine - Functions of a jig boring machine include drilling and milling ... ... ... ... ..... lants emphasised that the imported machine is not a production machine at all. Its high precision making it necessary only for the tool room. We have also seen the certificate given by the Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore, wherein they recorded that ldquo we are convinced that the machine under reference is a special tool room coordinate jig boring machine. rdquo 4. emsp The Tribunal decision in Sukeshan Equipments P. Ltd. v. C.C. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 621 cited by the departmental representative does not apply to the facts of this case. The Tribunal in that decision was concerned with a particular machine which it noted performed multiple functions. The President of the Tribunal, the third member to whom the issue was referred on disagreement between two members of the Bench found that the principal function of the machine was drilling. This reasoning would not apply to the machine now under consideration above. We find no reason to interfere. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 545
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... . 10,00,000/- Rs. 10,27,568/- and also levied penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs. On appeal the Commissioner rejected the appeal but waived penalty. Hence the present appeal. 2. emsp The ld. Counsel Shri J.C. Patel argued that the ground relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a ground on which Show Cause Notice were issued. He also relied on the Board rsquo s Circular No. 12/93-CX, dated 23-8-1993 which treated the deposit of duty amounting to payment of duty. The effects of these two grounds have to be considered by us at the time of final hearing of the matter. 3. emsp After hearing both sides we feel that it is appropriate if we direct the appellants either to freeze 50 amount in their Modvat account, if the credit is not available, cover up the 50 amount by way of bank guarantee (the total amount to be covered up is Rs. 10,14,000/-) upon which we waive the remaining amount of duty and stay its recovery. 4. emsp Compliance should be reported on or before 22nd January, 1999.
-
1998 (12) TMI 544
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... address. Since this was not done, they did not receive the notice of hearing of the above appeals and hence could not appear, resulting in dismissal of the appeals for default in appearance on 5-11-1997. 2. emsp Learned DR, Shri Nunthuk leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. 3. emsp We are satisfied with the explanation offered and, therefore, recall our dismissal order, restore the appeal and fix it for hearing on 21-1-1999. 4. emsp The ROA application is hereby allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 543
Adjudication in Modvat cases - Jurisdiction - Power of adjudication - Reference to High Court - Demand for Modvat
-
1998 (12) TMI 541
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 28.36. Even here both the Hon rsquo ble Members have not accepted the appellants rsquo claim under chapter 25. This is even on coated variety. Though, both the members have indicated differing classifications, both are against the appellants since the appellants have claimed classification under Chapter 25 has been rejected. The rate of duty between Headings 28.36 and 38.23 is practically uniform at all material times. The assessee has no real benefit of either of these classifications, it is prayed that the Hon rsquo ble Third Member may decide the difference of opinion on this aspect in the light of the above factual position. 45. emsp In view of the above, I agree with the ld. Member (J) that there was no infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority and the appeal was liable to be rejected. Sd/-(Lajja Ram)Member (T) FINAL ORDER 46. emsp In view of the majority opinion, the appeal is rejected. Sd/-(Jyoti Balasundaram)Member (J) Sd/-(S.K. Bhatnagar)Vice President
-
1998 (12) TMI 526
Classification of the assessee's products - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Such classification dispute is ordinarily resolved in assessment proceedings and, if resolved against the assessee, the assessee has to make payment of the differential amount of tax as required by sub-section (1-A) failing which the provisions of sub-section (1-B) apply.
The requirement of sub-section (1) is that the assessee must pay tax on the amount of his turnover as particularised in the Explanation thereto. Interest under the provisions of sub-section (1) cannot be levied in respect of a dispute such as a classification dispute which is resolved only by the assessment. Sub-section (1) has no application to such a situation.
Having regard to the conclusion that we reach upon the plain words of section 8, it is unnecessary to go into the assessee's contention that a substantial part of the amount claimed by the Revenue as and by way of interest is under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and under that Act no interest is leviable.
-
1998 (12) TMI 521
Winding up - Preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... have been out of operation and remained closed since 1984. Neither are they running at present nor is there any chance of their revival in future. The establishment being in the process of winding up, pure and simple, not engaged in any industrial activity specified in Schedule I nor specially notified under section 1(3)(b) of the Act, I am inclined to hold that the Provident Funds Act is not applicable and the official liquidator is not liable for contribution under that Act. As stated at the outset, no separate argument was advanced by counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The above-noted finding on the question of liability of the official liquidator under the Provident Funds Act will apply to and govern the question of similar liability under the Employees State Insurance Act as well. The report of the official liquidator (flag 324) and the connected affidavits filed by the parties stand disposed of. ------------------------- (1) Here printed in italics.
-
1998 (12) TMI 520
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... respondents themselves have conceded the rate of interest at 24 per cent per annum which is much higher than what any Court would have approved of. Under these circumstances, even on a rough appraisal the petitioners have received more than a fair quantum of interest that a Court would normally have approved of. It is for this reason that I do not see any justification in permitting further computations because it is well-settled law that winding up proceedings are not to be confused or equated with recovery proceedings. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, though the petitioners are afforded the liberty of enforcing whatever claim they may have subsisting against the respondents in appropriate proceedings, it is directed that the petitioners shall within a period of four weeks from today refund to the respondents the excess amount of Rs. 42,239 that has been received by them. 7. With these directions the company petition to stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 516
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... t particular date and having regard to these facts, I see no reason why at this late point of time such an offer should be accepted particularly when the cause of action has virtually reached a stage of conclusion. Is a Court obliged, virtually at the zero hour, to accept such a belated offer ? The answer is an emphatic no, because a party who pleads a false and sham defence, litigates on merits, loses and then tries to play with the Court by making a hopelessly belated offer deserves no indulgence. It is well settled law that a Court will only permit corrective action if it is bona fide, i.e., carried out at the earliest and not latest point of time. Having regard to this position, it is directed that the petitioners shall advertise in the local edition of the Times of India not earlier than 8-1-1999 and file a copy of the advertisement with the office of this Court. The next returnable date in this case shall be 10-2-1999 when the petition to be relisted for further orders.
-
1998 (12) TMI 500
Requirement of section 38B for a transporter operating its transport business relating to taxable goods in Tripura to obtain “certificate of registration” from the Commissioner of Taxes, is not violative of article 301 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid findings the impugned provisions of the Tripura Sales Tax Act and the Rules of 1976 are valid pieces of legislation
-
1998 (12) TMI 492
Compromise and arrangement, Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 17 of 1996, concerning Ratnamani Engineering Ltd. For the reasons stated above, Company Application No. 421 of 1998 is rejected. Company Application No. 416 of 1998 is not pressed. Company Petitions Nos. 140 of 1998 and 142 of 1998, which are filed by the merging companies as also Company Petition No. 141 of 1998, which is by the transferee-company seeking sanction to this scheme are allowed. The two transferor-companies would pay costs of Rs. 2,500 each to Mr. Jayant Patel representing the Central Government in those two petitions and the transferee-company shall pay Rs. 2,500 to Mr. B.T. Rao appearing for the Central Government in the petition filed by the transferee-company. Mr. Bhatt applies for stay of this order stating that he would like to prefer an appeal. Mr. Soparkar says that the objection is only by one shareholder as against some 4 lakh shareholders who have agreed to the scheme of amalgamation. In the circumstances, the request of Mr. Bhatt is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 491
Transfer of shares ... ... ... ... ..... t Nos. 4 and 5 in much as admittedly the company is not listed on any stock exchange nor the company has paid any dividends for the last many years. I do not intend to deal with these aspects at great length since in my view the order passed by the CLB cannot be sustained as it stands and the matter needs to be re-examined and reconsidered in accordance with law by the CLB in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court as noted and the reasons I have recorded. 22. Consequently, the company appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the CLB on 22-5-1992 is quashed and set aside. The CLB Western Region, Bench Bombay is directed to hear and decide Appeal Nos. 4 and 5 (111) CLB/WR of 1991 afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. Since the appeals are quite old, their expeditious disposal is expected preferably within three months from the date of the appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the CLB on 18-1-1999. SCL q MARCH 20, 1999
-
1998 (12) TMI 490
Winding up - of ex parte order ... ... ... ... ..... ng and final disposal. 14. Company Application No. 364 of 1997 in Company Petition No. 430 of 1992 is also made absolute in terms of prayer (a) . Prayer (a ) reads thus mdash (a) That the order dated 25-4-97, winding up the applicant-company be set aside and the company petition be placed on board for hearing and final disposal. In view of waiver of notice in both the company petitions by Mr. A.Y. Bookwala, the learned counsel for the applicant-company, now no notice is required to be issued by the Company Registrar under the Companies (Court) Rules and service of notice of the company petition on the company is treated as sufficient. The company is directed to file affidavit-in-reply within six weeks from today with an advance copy to the Advocates for the petitioning creditor. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed by the petitioning creditor within four weeks therefrom. Office is directed to post the company petition for final hearing thereafter. 15. No costs. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999
-
1998 (12) TMI 489
Powers of SEBI to issue directions ... ... ... ... ..... made on 2-3-1998 for acquisition of 20 per cent of the shares of RCL under the Takeover Code. This was done with a view to amicably resolve the issues and to settle the litigation which had commenced between the two groups. The Board will also determine the triggering event in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations of the appellate authority. It will be open to respondent Nos. 4 to 13 to make the payment to the shareholders who had accepted the public offer, within three days. The time under Regulation 22(12) is accordingly extended. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that it is in the interest of parties that SEBI completes the inquiry expeditiously. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the SEBI shall complete the inquiry expeditiously preferably by 31-1-1999. Dasti. 20. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. SCL q FEBRUARY 20, 1999
-
1998 (12) TMI 488
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... e due on the receipt of the consideration for the sale of shares. So far the amount has not been paid. The legal notice sent by the opposite party is not supported by another material on record and is, therefore, liable to be rejected out of consideration. The facts clearly prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Keeping the totality of facts and circumstances in view the complaint is allowed and the opposite party directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 2,43,810 alongwith interest 18 per cent per annum from 15-3-1995 till date of payment. In addition to the aforesaid amount the opposite party shall further pay Rs. 15,000 on account of compensation and costs. This order shall be complied with within four weeks of the receipt of a certified copy by the respondent failing which it will be open to the complainant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commission under section 27. Copy of the order be sent to both sides. Complaint allowed. SCL q DECEMBER 13, 1999
........
|
