|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 568 Records
-
1999 (8) TMI 923 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds re-purchased on any terms, is a pawnbroker within the meaning of main clause. The activities of pawnbroker as detailed above will satisfy the definition of business as well. We have also noticed that the pawner has no role at all in the sale of the goods pledged except to redeem the same before the sale is concluded. Therefore, he cannot be treated as seller in the context of the transaction. The Supreme Court also held that any activity incidental or ancillary to the main business will also come within the definition of business under the Sales Tax Act and therefore, the contention that the sale of unredeemed goods, being incidental to the business of pawnbroker was not liable to sales tax, cannot be accepted. The above judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions raised therein. In view of this we dismiss the original petition. No costs. Order on C.M.P. No. 22853 of 1998 in O.P. No. 13070 of 1998 dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 922 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ticle. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the impugned notification all the coal companies of Coal India Ltd. including respondent No. 7 started charging 8 per cent sales tax instead of 4 per cent on the sale of slurry from their customers including the petitioners. Besides this the respondents also charging 1 per cent additional tax over the same although as already stated above the State Government vide Notification No. S.O. 1613 dated 28th October, 1981 has already exempted the item all declared goods under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 from the levy of additional tax leviable under section 6 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents. In such circumstances, the respondents are liable to refund the excess amount realised from the petitioners. The respondents are accordingly directed to refund the excess amount of tax realised from the petitioners. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.-I agree. Writ petitions allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 921 - SC ORDER
Power subsidy based on a percentage of electricity bills - Held that:- Appeal allowed. As the subsidy is to meet a certain percentage of expenditure on power the receipt is therefore, revenue in nature and is covered by the decision Sahney Steel and Press Work Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax [1997 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court].
-
1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT
In determining the cost of an excisable product covered by the Modvat scheme under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules the excise duty paid on raw material also covered by the Modvat scheme is not to be included.
-
1999 (8) TMI 919 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Market Act can apply to the transactions of purchase of sugarcane and sale of sugar and molasses by the appellant sugar mills in view of the fact that regulation of these transactions is already effected by Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act,1981 as well as and Sugar both issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955 and also under the provisions of Bihar Molasses(Control) Act, 1947?
Whether imposition of market fee under the Market Act by the respective market committees is justified in the absence of any service rendered to the appellant sugar mills under the provisions of the Market Act and consequently the levy of market fee can be said to be not supported by any quid pro quo?
Held that:- Appeal allowed of assessee. Instead of the relief granted by the High Court limiting to the non-levy of market fee on sugar after 2.5.1977, it is directed that levy of market fee on sugar for the entire period covered by the writ petition will be treated to be unauthorised. This judgment will have only prospective operation and will not affect past transactions entered into prior to the date of this judgment.
-
1999 (8) TMI 918 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Provisional assessment - Question of fact ... ... ... ... ..... the submission of the learned D.R. that duty for six months preceding the date of the show cause notice would be sustainable and demand of duty to that extent can be recovered from the appellants herein if not already paid. 8. emsp At this stage, learned SDR has raised a further point that comments of the Competent Authority who approved the classification list that it is subject to the decision of the Tribunal, shows that the classification list was approved provisionally. He, therefore, submits that the question of limitation does not arise. On this point being taken, learned Advocate raised a preliminary objection that question of assessment being provisional is a question of fact and should not be allowed at this stage. We agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that this is a question of fact and this was not in the show cause notice nor there is a finding to this effect in the impugned order. We do not allow the learned D.R. to take up this plea at this stage.
-
1999 (8) TMI 917 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation - Evidence - Documentary evidence - Judicial discipline - Tribunal’s orders - Words and Phrases - Collusion - Show Cause Notice
-
1999 (8) TMI 916 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... facility including plant and equipment for producing single yarn. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the appellant bifurcated their factory into two factories prior to the amendment of Notification No. 35/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95 on 18-5-95. The Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Limited, Hyderabad (Supra) held that factories are to be treated distinct and separate even they belong to the same manufacturer and both the factories are situated in the same area enclosed by a single compound wall and common gate and one exit. This view was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Agrawal Rolling Mills, Mirzapur v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 143 (Tribunal) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Birla Jute and Industries Limited, reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 569 (Tribunal). 14. emsp In view of the above discussions the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 915 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment
... ... ... ... ..... ence to that effect produced by the department. Presumption under Section 12B will be only in respect of duty which has been assessed and paid at the time of clearance of the goods. Section 12B cannot be read in isolation with the other provisions and the scheme of the Central Excises Act and Rules made thereunder. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we observe that only the lower burden of duty has been passed on by the appellant to their customers. The duty of which refund has been claimed by them cannot be said to have been passed on by them and nor any such presumption can be made under Section 12B. We also note that there is no evidence of SDRs assertion that practice of the trade is to raise debit notes if any subsequent duty liability is raised by the department. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. Since no other point is involved, we direct that refund be paid forthwith since the appeal is more than five years old.
-
1999 (8) TMI 914 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Suspension of legal proceeding, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... had been levied on sales tax on the basis of the gross turnover of the company. In cases where surcharges were levied, the same cannot be recovered from the buyers, still then in law the same can be enforced. Similar may be the case with other taxes, rates or revenues as, for example, Central excise, municipal tax, etc. In any event, the Act does not contemplate any discrimination between the public dues and the private dues. If such a construction is made, the same may not stand the test of equal protection of law and equity before law as envisaged under article 14 of the Constitution. Such a construction, in our opinion, thus, must be avoided. 22. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial judge for considering the matter on the merits in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Ansari, J. - I agree.
-
1999 (8) TMI 913 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... d if even despite admission, the respondent fails and/or neglects to pay the amount, an appropriate action can be taken by the court within the framework of law. For the reasons aforementioned this appeal is allowed in part and the order under appeal is modified as under Application for winding up is admitted for the said sum of Rs. 43,987.50. The respondent is directed to pay the said amount to the appellant herein within one month from date and upon the respondent making the said payment the company petition shall remain stayed sine die. However, if the respondent defaults in making the said payment within the stipulated time advertisements in two newspapers, in accordance with law, shall be issued as may be directed by the learned trial judge. So far as the balance amount is concerned the parties are relegated to the suit. The appeal is accordingly disposed of but in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. M.H.S. Ansari J. mdash I agree.
-
1999 (8) TMI 912 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... invested the amount in a fixed deposit, it would get a return of 11 per cent interest on such investment for a period of 11 months. The post office had the benefit of the amount and it had taken nearly 14 months for it to realise the legal position and find out the apparent mistake committed by it. Therefore, it is just and necessary that the complainant should be paid an interest which he would have got if the amount had been invested in a fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank. 15. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed in part and there is a direction to the opposite party/respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 14,500 with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum, respectively, from the date of issue and till 30-11-1997. Such payment shall be made by the respondent post office on the surrender of original certificates issued in favour of the complainant. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Both parties shall bear their respective costs throughout.
-
1999 (8) TMI 911 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... decided if amount can be claimed or not, at this stage, it would be difficult to hold that the respondent has failed to pay the debts. Proceedings under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, cannot be utilised to put pressure for recovery of the amount. The court can only direct winding up if the defence is found futile, frivolous or without basis. When it is apparent from the facts mentioned above that as yet it cannot be adjudicated if the machine was giving performance in a satisfactory manner or not, particularly when a civil suit had been filed at Palwal by the respondent, at this stage when the questions are in controversy, it cannot be termed that it is a fit case to direct winding up of the respondent company. For these reasons, the petition must fail and is dismissed. By way of abundant cauction it is added that if the petitioner is choosing to file the civil suit, nothing said herein should be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.
-
1999 (8) TMI 906 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Suspension of legal proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... cause delay or impediment in the implementation of the sanctioned scheme. In order to safeguard such state of affairs, an embargo or bar is placed under section 22 of the Act against any step for execution, distress or the like or other similar proceedings against the company without the consent of the Board or as the case may be, the Appellate Authority. . . . (p. 10) 12. Therefore, once the proceedings are suspended due to registration of the reference, it will not be possible, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, to pass any coercive order as sought by the petitioners, in view of section 22. The learned advocate for the petitioners has himself admitted that there is no bar for the petitioners to approach the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and obtain appropriate orders in this behalf, under section 22A. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the application filed by the petitioners and the application is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1999 (8) TMI 902 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal against dismissal of appeal for non-compliance ... ... ... ... ..... s necessarily to be treated as an appealable order to the higher authority. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act also apparently contained a provision akin to Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. It was while disposing of a matter relating to the interpretation of a similar provision in the Kerala General Sales Tax that the Hon rsquo ble High Court had made the aforesaid observations. The other decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel have also been perused. These decisions also clearly support the line of reasoning followed by the Vice President in the Misc. order under consideration. 45. emsp In the light of the above, I concur with the view taken by the Vice President. The preliminary point taken by the ld. JDR has, therefore, to be rejected. 46. emsp Accordingly, I answer the point of difference referred to me as under The appeal is maintainable. 47. emsp The Stay Petition may now be heard by the concerned Bench. Sd/-(A.C.C. Unni)Member (J)
-
1999 (8) TMI 897 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rate of duty on warehoused goods - Anti-dumping duty ... ... ... ... ..... done by the Revenue appears to have some force. Since, however, this involves an enquiry into the facts and the plea was not taken before the lower authorities, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for bringing out the facts on record as to when the said Notification No. 159/95, dated 14-11-1995 was brought to the notice of the general public. This exercise may be done by the adjudicating authority by carrying out an enquiry from the concerned authority for issuing the notification i.e. the Government Press. The matter, therefore, be readjudicated in the light of the aforesaid directions. In other words, he would have to ask as to when the Notification 159/95 dated 14-11-1995 was put on sale to public. In the light of the said enquiry this plea taken by the appellants before us be decided in the light of the Apex Court rsquo s judgment in the case of New Tobacco Company, mentioned supra. 6. Appeal is thus allowed by remand.
-
1999 (8) TMI 896 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Advance Licence - DEEC Scheme - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ale of goods, admittedly in order to realise the duty, that resulted in the contravention. In these circumstances, we are of the view that while an appropriate penalty is imposable on Banswara, the fact does not justify imposition of penalty on its chairman or other office bearers and set aside the penalty imposed on them. In the facts of the case we are of the view that penalty imposable on Banswara should be Rs. 5 lakhs. 13. emsp The Commissioner rsquo s order demanding interest on the goods has no authority in law. The fact that the licensing provisions provided for interest to be recovered does not entrust upon the Collector authority under the Customs Act, to demand interest. The policy provisions in fact do not indicate interest. Those provisions in any case are not a statutory authority empowering the Commissioner of Customs to demand interest. The demand to interest therefore is not substantiated. 14. emsp Appeal C/120/94-Bom is allowed in part, other appeals allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 895 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification of goods - Misdeclaration as to classification ... ... ... ... ..... had been declared to be scrap and the finding of the adjudicating authority that they do not confirm NARI specifications. 5. emsp The goods have been declared in the bills of entry to be scrap. We agree that it is possible that there may be different perception in different country with regard to what is scrap and what is not scrap. What is considered as scrap in one country may not necessarily be considered as scrap in another country, where it may be put to use and hence would be considered as serviceable material. At the same time, we have to take note of the fact that the goods were not scrap within the meaning of NARI specifications. These specifications command considerable respect in the market and are often referred to. Taking note of this, as also the demurrage incurred by it, we set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant and reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 1.00 lac to Rs. 50,000/- in each bill of entry. 6. emsp Appeal allowed in part. Consequential relief.
-
1999 (8) TMI 894 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Demand - Plea of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... nd that the issue is covered by two decisions of the Tribunal. In the first case in CCE v. P.N. Dhoot Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., in Appeal E/656, 658/95 1999 (111) E.L.T. 118 (T) , the Tribunal held M/s. P.N. Dhoot Investment Pvt. Ltd., not to be related to M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd. or to M/s. Videocon International Ltd. solely on the basis of presence of common director on the stock holding pattern. On the same view the Tribunal held M/s. Rajkumar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd. respondents in Appeal E/654 and 655/95 1999 (112) E.L.T. 393 (T) not to be related. 3. emsp The departmental representative is unable to say as to why ratio of this decision will not apply to the present case. It will have to be held that the two companies are not related. The appeal is accordingly dismissed on this ground. In view of this the arguments related to limitation raised before us by the Advocate for the respondent is not considered. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 893 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Transparency - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... er is fit for remand so far as question of transparency is concerned. We therefore, remand the matter to the lower appellate authority regarding the classification of transparency - whether it will fall under Tariff Heading 49.06 or 49.11. This classification, we may say, will depend on the finding of fact whether the transparency has been drawn through mechanical process or by hand. 7. emsp If the said authority comes to a conclusion that the transparency has not been drawn by hand as has been held by the adjudicating authority, then in that case, ammonia prints also would not fall under Tariff Heading 49.06 because it refers to ldquo photographic prints of the foregoing rdquo , that is photographic print of the original drawings drawn in hand. We therefore, remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for deciding the case afresh in the light of above observations after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents herein Appeals disposed of in the above manner.
............
|
