|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 568 Records
-
1999 (8) TMI 730 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up – Circumstances in which a company may be would up ... ... ... ... ..... e respondent-company and that what was actually paid by the petitioner-company to the Punjab State Electricity Board was far less. It is thus a dispute pertaining to the calculation and thereupon an exact figure could be arrived at as to how much amount is due. In addition to that, the respondent-company claimed a set-off of a particular amount. When such is the controversy coupled with the dispute that it is asserted that there was erratic supply of electricity by the petitioner-company, it would be in the fitness of things that the matter is decided by an appropriate civil court. In such like disputes, winding up is not necessary because the remedy provided under section 434 of the Act is not a matter of right. The discretion, in the peculiar facts, thus cannot be exercised in favour of winding up of the respondent-company. For these reasons, the company petition is dismissed. It is clarified that nothing said herein is any expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.
-
1999 (8) TMI 728 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Delivery of property to liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... until further orders from this Court. The applicant shall submit the said undertaking at the time of taking possession of the said premises back from the Official Liquidator. (d)The learned counsel for the applicant on instructions of Mr. Chandraprakash Jain, Director of the Company in liquidation states that all the directors will file the necessary statement of affairs to the Official Liquidator within a period of four weeks from today. (e)The Official Liquidator to act on an ordinary copy of the order duly authenticated by the company registrar of this Court. (f)The Official Liquidator will permit the applicant to hand over the processed or un-processed fabric belonging to the third parties on the conditions that the applicant is able to satisfy the Official Liquidator that the said fabric belong to the third parties. (g)The Security-guards provided by the Official Liquidator to continue and the applicant shall bear the charges of the Security-guards. SO q OCTOBER 20, 1999
-
1999 (8) TMI 722 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Appeal against order of BIFR ... ... ... ... ..... owledge or not, the appeal is maintainable if it is filed within forty-five days of issuance of copy. In the present case the appeal has been filed within forty-five days of issuance of copy. 3. I think, the interpretation sought to be placed on section 18(3)(a) and section 25 is logical. Once a party receives a copy in terms of section 18(3)(a) time starts running out against him. If no copy is given to him even if he has knowledge, I do not think, he can be non-suited on the ground of limitation. 4. For these reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Although the learned counsel appearing for the parties had consented to passing of the order that is being passed, yet this order is passed on merits because in my view question of limitation could not be decided on the basis of consent of the parties. No costs. SCL q DECEMBER 20, 1999
-
1999 (8) TMI 706 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... luded that the claim of wastage and burning loss should be at the rate of 0.85 per cent resulting into addition. However, the fact remains that it is a question of estimate and no hard and fast rule can be applied in ariving at a particular rate of burning/wastage loss and if the Department itself has accepted more percentage of loss then there may be good reason for making addition but certainly not for penalty. The assessee had not concealed any facts as every thing was on record. Not only this the CIT(A) Faridabad under similar circumstances had deleted such penalty in the case of M/s. Haryana Metal Co. as referred to above and learned DR was not able to point out that the said order had been challenged by the Department or not. Accordingly we find no justification for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly penalty levied and sustained by the authorities below under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be cancelled. 8. Appeal stands allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 700 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... amounts to manufacture and are classifiable under Heading 7308 of the Excise Tariff. 3. emsp Heard learned SDR and perused the appeal papers. 4. emsp The appellants in this case fabricated the steel structurals such as Columns, Girders and Trusses. The contention of the Revenue is that the Tribunal in the case of Richardson and Cruddas Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 176 (Tribunal) held that the fabrication of steel structurals amounts to manufacture. 5. emsp We find that the Tribunal in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 337 after considering the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue held that fabrication of steel structural, as in the present case, does not amount to manufacture and are not excisable. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 692 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS)
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... submissions made at the time of hearing. In this case the adjudicating authority has demanded the duty on the ground that the value of clearances of duty paid input should be taken into account to arrive at the aggregate clearances for computing the S.S.I. limit. In this connection I have perused the text of relevant Notification No. 16/97(N.T.) Clause 3 of which, specifically provides that for the purpose of determining aggregate value of clearances of specified goods which are used as inputs for further manufacture of specified goods within the factory of production of specified goods would not be taken into account such clearances of specified goods used as inputs shall be deemed to be exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. This being the legal position the inclusion of value of intermediate product for computing the S.S.I. limit is not sustainable. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order is not sustainable hence set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 691 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... export under erstwhile Rule 191B (new Rule 13) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Bar of Rule 57C relating to exempted goods not attracted in such case Appeal allowed. 20. emsp The Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of JCT Ltd. v. C.C.E., Chandigarh - 1999 (31) RLT 212 held as under - Modvat credit - Rules 57C and 191BB of Central Excise Rules, 1944 Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (NT), dated 5-9-1990 - Credit admissible in respect of intermediate goods manufactured and cleared without payment of duty by an intermediate advance license holder in terms of Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (NT) and Rule 191BB to a manufacturer -exporter of final product - not hit by Rule 57C. 21. emsp The ratio laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal in the above judgments covers the case of the appellants. 22. emsp In view of the discussion in the forgoing paras, I find that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is not correct and proper. I therefore set aside the same and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (8) TMI 690 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ct that one milk chiller or heat exchanger was found in the factory, the benefit has to go to the appellants and we hold that it is not liable for confiscation. The other two goods, which were not entered into the R.G. 1 register, were only scrap material, which as per law, should have been entered into R.G. 1 register and to that extent, the appellants have contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules. As the valuation of these goods is only Rs. 1,500/-, the amount of penalty and redemption fine has to be proporationate to their value. In respect of remaining 4 items, we hold that confiscation is not warranted as the goods have been duly accounted for in the R.G. 1 register and the same were available in the factory premises. A classification list can be filed before the removal of the goods. In view of these facts and circumstances, we reduce the amount of redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 20/- and Rs. 100/- respectively. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (8) TMI 687 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ers. In view of these facts and circumstances, all the three Appeal Nos. E/34 to 36/95-C filed by three Appellants are rejected. 10. emsp In respect of remaining three Appeal Nos. E/291 to 293/95-C, the Appellants have pleaded violation of principles of natural justice as the total value of clearances during the preceding financial year was enhanced exparte for the purpose of denying the small scale exemption to them. The Revenue has not controverted this plea of the appellants. It is a settled law that the Appellants have to put on notice before modifying the declarations made by them. No order can be passed without first issuing a show cause notice and affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. As in these three appeals, principles of natural justice have not been followed, we remand all the three appeals to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh adjudication after following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly these three appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (8) TMI 667 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... itional Collector in the impugned order holding that the appellants had suppressed the facts as they had not filed any classification list showing the changed position and availed the duty exemption for which they were not entitled. The appellants submitted that their RT-12 return for March, 1986 was assessed by the department without any remark regarding short payment of duty. Further they came to know about the notification No. 202/86 only when the Range Suptd. informed them about the same. We agree with the appellants that in the facts and circumstances of the case there cannot be suppression of facts on the part of the appellants as they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and once its operation was suspended by Notification No. 202/86 the department, while assessing the RT-12, should have pointed out the same and demanded the excise duty within the specified time under Section 11A. The demand is thus hit by time-limit and accordingly the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 665 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Precedent - Exports ... ... ... ... ..... rtain whether all the goods so cleared were actually exported. Since this is not on record, and it is not possible for this Tribunal to go through these voluminous detailed records, therefore we find that the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority for an examination, inter alia, of this issue. We, therefore, set aside the orders impugned and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner concerned with the following directions - (a) While deciding the matter on de novo basis, the appellants shall be given full opportunity to be heard and to produce any evidence with respect to the claimed export of the goods under dispute. (b) While deciding the matter in de novo proceedings, the ld. Commissioner shall take into consideration all the citations noted above and pass a speaking order in this behalf. (c) Ld. Commissioner shall also take into consideration the Board rsquo s circular dt. 20-5-1996 noted above. 13. emsp The appeals are allowed by way of remand accordingly.
-
1999 (8) TMI 663 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Sugar - Levy sugar - Interpretation of Statute ... ... ... ... ..... alia, is the date on which the duty is to be paid under this Act or Rules made thereunder which, in this case, is after 1996. Therefore, the limitation in this regard should apply from the date of receipt of the differential price of levy sugar by the manufacturers. Viewing from this point of view, I hold that the demand raised under proviso to Section 11A(1) is legitimate on the sugar factory in a mala fide manner suppressed the information about the receipt of the differential amounts from the Central Excise Department. So the Department is justified in invoking the extended period for raising the demand. rdquo 12. emsp In sustaining the demand under this provision, recourse must be had to the relevant date defined in this Section. The ld. Commissioner cannot redefine the terms as he has sought to do. In the result, we find that there was no basis for the Commissioner to sustain the demands made in the show-cause notice. These appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
1999 (8) TMI 661 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... t cannot be disregarded. The Appellants have submitted an advice dated 30-3-1993 from one Shri V.R. Ranganathan, who is a Consultant (Customs and Excise). His advice is not an expert opinion given by technical man and it cannot be preferred over the test report given by a Chemical Examiner. This is nothing but a legal advice. The Assistant Collector has disclosed in detail in the adjudication order as to why the impugned product is classifiable under sub-heading 3209.90 of C.E.T.A. The Appellants have not substantiated their contention that their impugned products fall under Heading 32.14 of the Tariff. In view of this, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities regarding classification of the products. We also observe that this is not a case warranting imposition of penalty as the issue involved was the classification of a product. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on them. 6. emsp The appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.
-
1999 (8) TMI 658 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... ort does not become equally illegal. The provisions of Sections 111 and 113 are designed to act in different situations and one Section cannot be attracted merely because the other is. 11. emsp The amendment of the show cause notice vide which the provisions of Section 123 were invoked was nearly one year after the first show cause notice was made. The amendment being material cannot be called an amendment but in fact is a notice. Viewed in this manner, the show cause notice itself would be become barred by limitation. 12. emsp In the result I find that in the entire proceedings leading to the issue of the impugned order there were nothing in the nature of evidence to show that the diamonds seized and confiscated were smuggled inside India nor any evidence to the effect that they were attempted to be exported in contravention of any provisions relating to such export. 13. emsp In the result the impugned order does not sustain. This appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1999 (8) TMI 656 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... the applicants that the order was an unreasoned one and that it was made without considering the various submissions made by the appli shy cants. 12. emsp In our opinion the assessees were wrong in holding that the orders passed by the appellate authority were bad in law and there shy fore not to be complied with. 13. emsp We, therefore, are not inclined to accept the prayer for unconditional stay and waiver. Shri M.H. Patil at this stage submits that the applicants be permitted to secure the revenue by way of filing a bank guarantee. We have no objection. We direct the applicants to file a bank guarantee for 50 of the duty confirmed in the proceedings. On such guaran shy tee being filed the pre-condition of deposit of penalty imposed in all the three orders shall be waived and its recovery stayed. The bank guarantee should be filed within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 14. emsp The applicants are free to seek early hearing of the appeal in this situation.
-
1999 (8) TMI 638 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation - Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... horities. The proper procedure for the department would have been to release the documents to the assessees or furnish copies of the documents to them so that they could substantiate their claim regarding exports with the help of those documents. We find from the Panchnama covering the seizure of the goods that several files relating to exports are among the documents under seizure. We, therefore, direct that copies of these files be made available to the appellants for substantiating their claim regarding exports and work out the duty demand in the light of this claim. The case is, therefore, remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision regarding duty liability within the normal period of six months as provided in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after giving the due remission in respect of the exported goods. The final order should be passed in the above terms in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (8) TMI 637 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Manufacture - Goods, condition of, at the time of removal ... ... ... ... ..... y the item after detailed examination of tariff notes and explanatory notes. In view of the findings arrived at by us, we are of the view that the matter is required to be reexamined by the original authority in light of the observations made by the Tribunal as in the case of SAE (India) Ltd. and also the stands taken by the appellants that what were cleared from the factory were slotted angles etc. and not furniture and such items are not excisable in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Elecon Engg. (supra). Appellants have taken a plea that demands were barred by time and there was no suppression as they had been maintaining all the registers and they had no intention to evade duty. This aspect of the matter is also required to be examined. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Addl. Collector (Commissioner) for de novo consideration in the light of these observations made by us. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is allowed by remand.
-
1999 (8) TMI 636 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Mis-declaration of value ... ... ... ... ..... order impugned in this appeal. Regarding the valuation of the goods, we find that the valuers were experts notified by the Collectorate in a Public Notice. Their valuation is also imported by the value at which similar/comparable goods had been imported earlier i.e. at a slightly lower value of 15 US per ct. Thus, we are not able to find merit in the challenge to the valuation. We also find from the public notice that Sh. Dulichand Tank is specifically indicated as expert in the valuation of emeralds. Therefore, his valuation has to be given due consideration, even though the present consignment is synthetic emerald. 5. emsp In view of the above discussions, we confirm the order with regard to valuation of the goods, demand of duty, confiscation and redemption fine. However, keeping all the facts and circumstances of the case in view, we reduce the personal penalty on the appellant from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000/-. Subject to this modification, the order impugned is confirmed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 635 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Mis-declaration of value - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... the goods were imported was US 82,500.00. In the proforma invoice which the customs authorities got on search of the premises of M/s. Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. showed the same amount as the value. But there that value was arrived at by showing a discount of US 39,325.00. In commercial transactions discount to purchasers is not uncommon. On account of that discount it cannot be said that the amount shown in the invoice is not the actual value of the goods imported. Viewed in that light, there was no reason for ordering confiscation of the goods. The authorities could have loaded the value to the extent of the discount and assessed accordingly. Now the question is purely academic, because the Tribunal in the earlier order found that discount has also to be added. 7. emsp In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any ground to uphold the order passed by the Commissioner which is under challenge in these appeals. That order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (8) TMI 634 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... . emsp We have perused the records of the case and have considered the submissions. It is seen from the orders that comparable price of the resin was obtained from computer print out of contemporary imports. However, this print out is not part of the record of the case. The appellants were also not given copy of the print out so that they could make effective representation. It is a part of fair proceedings that relied upon materials be made available to the defendant so that he can understand and analyse the material and make meaningful submissions. In the instant case, this requirement has not been satisfied in the proceedings below. The matter is, therefore, required to go back for a fresh decision. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand to the Asstt. Commissioner. He shall make available a copy of the computer print out relied upon in the proceedings to the appellants and shall decide the case afresh after giving them an opportunity to present their case.
............
|
