|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 436 Records
-
1999 (12) TMI 827
Service Tax – Delay in filing quarterly ST-3 return – Penalty reduced ... ... ... ... ..... was paid by them, which resulted in the issue of show cause notice, which was replied by the appellant that they were under the impression that annual return is required to be filed like Income Tax. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,700/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of his order under Sec. 77 of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994. The appeal against that order was rejected. Hence this appeal. The precedent order also dealt with the same aspect, and ultimately held in paragraph 2 of the order, that the minimum penalty of Rs. 100/- per week has to be imposed, and for the delay of 11 weeks Rs. 1,100/- was quantified, and the impugned order was modified to that extent. Adopting the above view, this appeal is allowed in part, and the penalty of Rs. 7,700/- imposed under the order-in-original and confirmed in the order-in-appeal, is reduced to Rs. 1,100/- (Rupees one thousand and one hundred only). The stay application also stands disposed of.
-
1999 (12) TMI 826
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... f Rs. 10,77,550/- as per the order of the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner could not have refused to rectify the certificate of intimation. 3. emsp Initially a return was filed by the answering respondent justifying the stand of the Commissioner. Re-joinder has been filed by the petitioner putting-forth that the show cause notice was issued indicating that the tax due was Rs. 10,77,550/-. 4. emsp In course of hearing, Mrs. Nair, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Department fairly conceded that the corrigendum issued by the Department is correct as it is in consonance with the order passed by the adjudicating authority on 6-1-1999. It is admitted at the Bar that as per the corrigendum, the amount in question has already been deposited. 5. emsp Keeping in view the aforesaid fair concession made by the learned Counsel for respondents, it is directed that the certificate of intimation shall be duly rectified. 6. emsp The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
1999 (12) TMI 825
Appeal - New plea - Adjudication - Re-adjudication on remand ... ... ... ... ..... formula to be adopted for calculating the storage capacity of the cylinders inasmuch as the assessees were ousted on the preliminary point of the cylinders being not capital goods. The Tribunal in the present order has also not given any observations on this aspect of the impugned order and has confirmed the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the Assistant Commissioner with direction to re-decide the same in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the Larger Bench case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. As the matter has already been remanded to the Assistant Commissioner and is before him for passing order in de novo proceeding, he is not bound by any direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) and should re-decide the matter by applying his mind independently to the issue involved and after giving a fair opportunity to the assessee to put forth their case. The application filed by the Revenue is disposed of in the above manner.
-
1999 (12) TMI 824
Smuggling - Evidence - Burden of proof - Statement - Confessional statement - Smuggling - Expert opinion
-
1999 (12) TMI 823
Appeal - Restoration of - Ex parte order - Delay in challenge ... ... ... ... ..... rder shows that the petitioner was callously indifferent in approaching this Tribunal to get the order modified on the ground of non-service of notice. In any circumstance, he cannot be heard to say that he did not come to know of the Final Order pursuant to the communication dated 31-3-98 addressed to him by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. After having come to know of the Final Order passed by this Tribunal, atleast from that communication, he did not take any reasonable or prudent step to approach this Tribunal. After realising the laches on his part he approached the Supreme Court questioning the correctness of that order. Without pursuing that appeal he got that appeal withdrawn. Even after getting it withdrawn, he took more than 5 weeks to approach this Tribunal. We do not find any reason to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner. On account of these laches, we do not find any reason to entertain this application also. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 822
CESTAT - President - Appointment of President - Cadres ... ... ... ... ..... was appointed as President on a fixed tenure has already been dealt with. We have held that the two posts are not in the same cadre. When the two posts are in different cadres, the question of retaining lien by officer concerned on the post held by him before his appointment to the ex cadre post on substantive basis does not arise. The appointment of petitioner on the post of President, CEGAT was a permanent substantive appointment though for a fixed tenure. The said post being in a cadre different from the cadre of the post of Member, the petitioner could not retain his lien in the post of Member, CEGAT. Accordingly in our considered view the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal rightly rejected his application whereby he had challenged the action of the respondents in not allowing him to continue in the post of Member, CEGAT. This petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their respective costs.
-
1999 (12) TMI 820
Company – Incorporation of ... ... ... ... ..... ng against him in C. C. No. 1067 of 1999, I have no hesitation to hold that the very admitted special facts and circumstances of the case require this court to direct the respondent to execute the non-bailable warrant pending against the petitioner in cold storage, lying for execution in C. C. Noy 1067 of 1999 for several months, without any further delay, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice, but not to recall the same as prayed for. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the above Crl. O.P. Hence, the same is dismissed of course, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, for recalling the warrant invoking section 70(2), Criminal Procedure Code, which shall be disposed of by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-8, on the merits, without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the above O.P.
-
1999 (12) TMI 819
Court - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... s. 2 to 12 are said to be controlling respondent No. 1. The only parties affected by the company petition as well as the present petition are respondent Nos. 13 to 17. Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and 17 are co-operative societies and the creditors of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 15 is the Income-tax Department, which has sent notice to respondent No. 1 company. Respondent No. 16 is the Deputy Executive Engineer of M.S.E.B. who claimed the arrears of electricity from respondent No. 1. Thus, by obtaining an order of status quo from the District Court, the recovery of the amounts due have affectedly been stayed. 5. In my view, the company petition filed before the District Court, Kolhapur and the present petition are an abuse of the process of the Court and are misconceived. 6. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 7. No costs. 8. The observations made above will not stand in the way of the petitioner in filing a company petition in the court of competent jurisdiction.
-
1999 (12) TMI 818
Court - Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... e of the respondent-company is situated beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner-company has specifically contended that the registered office of the respondent-company is situated at 2076, Phase-7, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali District, Ropar, Punjab, as such, this Court also would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present petition. For the aforestated reason, I have no hesitation in allowing this petition finally and order the winding up of the respondent-company. 6. Consequently, the present company petition is allowed. The respondent-company is ordered to be wound up in accordance with law. The official liquidator attached to this Court is hereby appointed the official liquidator of the respondent-company. He shall take over the books of account, assets, properties of the company forthwith. 7. The order of winding up would be published in Indian Express, Dainik Tribune and the Official Gazette of the State of Punjab in accordance with law.
-
1999 (12) TMI 817
Effect of winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... diction. The petitioner could not have been permitted to withdraw the petition. Apart from this, it is the case of the company that the company is registered before the BIFR. The facts leading up to the registration of a reference before the BIFR are noticed in my order dated December 7,1999, as also in the order of Justice Kapadia dated November 4,1999. This reference, in fact, was registered after the order of winding up was passed on April 5, 1999. Be that as it may. Even on the company s own submissions, no further proceedings could have taken place in the winding up petition after a reference has been made before the BIFR. Keeping the aforesaid facts and circumstances in view, the order dated December 7, 1999, is hereby recalled. The judge s summons taken out for withdrawing the petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. At this stage, Mr. Diwan prays that the operation of the order be stayed. I do not find any justification for the same. Rejected. Certified copy expedited.
-
1999 (12) TMI 812
Import - Rate of duty - Date of entry inwards of vessel - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... the entry in the inward register is made a few days after grant of entry inward by some omission or inadvertence, that notwithstanding the facts the vessel was entered inward entry, it is the date when the entry was made in the register that should be considered. 10. emsp The fact that the preventive officer, who boarded the vessel on 29-2-1981 made a report to the Assistant Collector of Customs on the 1-3-1988 does not appear to have been any relevance. The letter does not indicate in what connection the visit was made or more specifically that it was in connection with the grant of entry inwards. It is a routine function of a preventive officer to board the ship, rummage it, seal the bonded stores and take the arrival report of the master of the vessel. Therefore, this letter alone is insufficient not to accept the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs regarding grant of entry. 11. emsp We therefore do not find any reason to interfere and dismiss the appeal.
-
1999 (12) TMI 811
Pre-deposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the credit in the said account for payment of duty. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, the deposit of whole of duty and penalty is waived for hearing of the appeal and the appeal is being taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties. 5. emsp As the appellants vide letter dated 10-7-1999 informed the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of compliance to the stay order by debiting in their R.G. 23C Pt. II account and in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Swill Ltd, the debit in the R.G. 23C Pt. II is a proper compliance of the stay order dated 23-6-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal afresh on merit after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 810
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... f interpretation of taxing statutes has been discussed. The consensus is that a taxing statute is to be interpreted strictly and literally. The strict construction of notification is that, in order to become eligible documents, the endorsed gate pass must have been endorsed prior to the date 1-4-1994. It would therefore appear that under this Notification a gate pass issued prior to 1-4-1994 but endorsed after this date would cease to become eligible document. rdquo 7. emsp We are satisfied that a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal decision which is required to be referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court on the lines of the Question of Law, framed above. 8. emsp The Registry may send the necessary papers along with this order to the High Court. The registry may also enclose therewith a copy of the Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994 for appropriate consideration by the High Court. 9. emsp The Reference Application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (12) TMI 809
Evidence - Demand - Clandestine removal - Penalty - Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... tements are admissible and have been correctly relied upon. 14. emsp The fact that electricity consumption of the appellant was not verified is not relevant. These statements in my opinion are sufficient evidence to establish the charge. 15. emsp The demand for duty therefore on this score is upheld. It would follow therefore that confiscation of goods and plant and machinery also is justifiable. Having regard to the value of the goods and the duty involved, the penalty of Rs 1.00 lac imposed on the assessee and the redemption fine fixed by the Collector for redemption of the fabric or for the plant and machinery is not incommensurate. 16. emsp The assessee is a partnership firm of which Ramesh Agrawal is a partner. It is now settled law that penalty cannot be imposed separately on the firm and its partners. On this ground, penalty could not be imposed on Ramesh Agrawal. That penalty is set aside and appeal allowed. 17. emsp Appeal E/640/93 dismissed. Appeal E/663/93 allowed.
-
1999 (12) TMI 793
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... enty-five thousand only) with respect to their stay application No. E/St/728/99 in Appeal No. E/1524/99 arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 120/99(M-III), dated 7-6-1999. The said amounts shall be deposited within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. emsp At this stage, the learned Consultant prays for remand of the matter to the first appellate authority, who had not considered the merits of the case, the orders impugned having been issued under section 35F of the Act. We find that this request is justified as the merits have not been considered at all. Therefore, we direct that the appellants shall report compliance of this pre-deposit ordered above before the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned within the time-limit specified above and we also set aside the Orders-in-Appeal impugned and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration on merits, after hearing the appellants and without insisting on any further pre-deposit of amounts.
-
1999 (12) TMI 785
Winding up - Fraudulent preference, Avoidance of certain attachments, executions etc. ... ... ... ... ..... unit was closed a year before the transaction had taken place. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I reach the conclusion that the petitioner-liquidator has failed to discharge its burden in establishing that the transaction in question is a fraudulent transaction and/or the 1st respondent secured creditor has been preferred to the other creditors of the company by making payment of its dues from the consideration received by the 3rd respondent. 18. There is material on record that the vehicle, furniture, equipment belonging to the company and amounting to Rs. 70,000 as in the month of December, 1981, were not sold by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent. Thus, it appears that incorrect statement of affairs has been filed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner liquidator would be at liberty to recover the unsold properties from the 2nd respondent and other directors on its current market value. 19. In the result, the application fails and is hereby dismissed. Costs as incurred.
-
1999 (12) TMI 784
Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement ... ... ... ... ..... said Act. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff also relied upon U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure (P.) Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1373 but this decision has no application to the case on hand. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the language employed under section 8, viz., lsquo shall rsquo , I am of the view that the plaintiff has to be directed to refer the matter for arbitration only. Simply because the applicant has disputed the existence of any hire purchase agreement or any clause therein, it will not empower the plaintiff to ignore the clause 18 in the hire purchase agreement and file the suit of this type. 14. For the reasons stated above, Application No. 2789 of 1999 is ordered, directing the plaintiff to resort to Arbitration proceedings in accordance with Arbitration Act, 1996 and the suit is not maintainable. In view of the orders passed in Application No. 2789 of 1999, Application No. 2790 of 1999 is dismissed as unnecessary.
-
1999 (12) TMI 783
Reference to arbitrator - Period of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... as been referred within that period. The learned counsel for the respondents also did not show me any letter or document which came into existence within a period of three months from 23-9-1996 which can be considered as acknowledgment of liability by the petitioners so that it can be said that the period of limitation gets extended. The letter dated 5-12-1997 referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents firstly is beyond the period of three months from 23-7-1996 and secondly, its contents do not show that it can operate as an acknowledgment. Thus, it is clear to my mind that the reference of the dispute in February 1998 was clearly beyond the period of three months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a judgment of this court in Arbitration Petition No. 365 of 1999 decided on 28-10-1999. In the result therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Petition is granted in terms of prayer clause (a).
-
1999 (12) TMI 782
Arbitrator award ... ... ... ... ..... as there is no provision in the Bye-law which can be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of regulation No. 5 dealing with the aspect of limitation, it is regulation No. 5 quoted above which will govern the period of limitation. The dispute therefore had to be referred to arbitration within three months from the accrual of cause of action. The cause of action would arose in September and October, 1996 or at best, in June, 1997 or July/August, 1997 when the cheques were issued or in the month of July/August, 1997 when the cheques were dishonoured and the respondent took various steps for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, the date of accrual of the cause of action can be extended to December, 1997. The award is of a subject- matter which was not clearly arbitrable since it was barred by limitation and therefore, the award is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The petition is granted in terms of prayer clause (a).
-
1999 (12) TMI 781
Winding up - Third party’s petition to release property not belonging to company ... ... ... ... ..... alleged to have been invested by the petitioner. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the petitioner to second and thirgd respondents each as lsquo upfront rsquo amount cannot also be directed to be released, as the same is also paid on behalf of the company in liquidation. Admittedly, the petitioner claims that the property belongs to him and the same is not the property of the company and he brought in the said machinery pursuant to the interim orders passed by the BIFR and it is open for the petitioner to approach the BIFR for appropriate orders to return the machinery or any money invested by him pursuant to the interim orders granted by the BIFR and the petitioner is also at liberty to approach the BIFR seeking appropriate relief. 8. In view of the same, the application is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. Any observation made herein will not be construed as this court has decided the rights of the parties in any manner whatsoever. No costs.
........
|
