|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... ed to have been removed without payment of duty, even though the names of the consignees were appended on the octroi receipts. Further the respondents have some times issued two gate passes in a single day and this would show that whenever they cleared two consignments, they issued two gate passes and therefore, the contention of the Department that more than one consignment on a single gate pass had been cleared in order to evade payment of duty, cannot be accepted. Further, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the Tribunal's decision relied upon by the lower Appellate Authority, is applicable to the facts of the present case and the Revenue has only state that a Reference application has been filed against the above decision. Since the impugned order is based upon the Tribunal's order which is admittedly applicable to this case, we see no legal infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly upon the same and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2000 (10) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... sion in the case of M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies (supra) relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel is not at all concerned with the issue of promissory estoppel and has no bearing to the issues involved in the present petition. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. It is held that the Government Order dated 14th July, 1992, would not be applicable to the petitioner. The condition mentioned in the Order dated 16th July, 1993 (filed as Annexure-9 to the petition) in so far as it grants the benefit of grant in aid to the extent of 75 per cent of the entertainment tax in the first two years is quashed and we hold that the petitioner is entitled for grant in aid of 100 per cent of the amount of entertainment tax in the first two years. The various orders, which are impugned, namely 22nd July, 1993, 13th September, 1993 and 22nd September, 1993 cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 17. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
-
2000 (10) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... o be applied in the manner as are beneficial to the non-resident. Since under Explanation to section 9(1) (i) the income taxable in India is only such portion as is attributable to the activities of the non-resident in India, we hold that only that part of the income which is attributable to the activities of the non-resident in India is taxable in India. Since no part of the services relating to outbound parcels was carried out in India by the respondent. Article 7, in our view, does not impose any tax liability in respect of such activities of the non-resident. We accordingly hold that the respondent is not liable to tax in regard to the income attributable to the outbound consignments. The decision of the CIT(A) in this regard is hereby confirmed. In regard to the inbound consignments the decision of the CIT(A) is set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 59. In the result, the appeals of the revenue for assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 are partly allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... dity.” The appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 8. The ratio of the decision in S.D. Fine Chemical case applies squarely to the present matter before us. The name and character of saltpetre remain the same after the process of purification undertaken by the Appellants. The ld. Advocate for the Appellants has distinguished the decisions in two cases relied upon by the ld. SDR and Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order. In Subharaj & Co. case raw animal bones, were broken and crushed in disintegrator and bone meal was obtained to be used principally as a fertilisers a new product had emerged. In Brakes India case brake lining blanks could not be used for motor vehicles without holes and trimming and chamferring. We, therefore, hold that the process undertaken by the Appellant does not amount to manufacture. We thus allow the appeal without going into the other submissions made on behalf of the Appellant.
-
2000 (10) TMI 961
... ...
... ... ..... ture’. The application in the present case cannot be said to be barred on the ground of the provision of 3rd proviso to section 32E(1). 27. In view of our findings above, the application is admitted and is allowed to be proceeded with under section 32F(1). The applicant shall pay the balance of admitted additional duty amounting to ₹ 32,46,462/- within 30 days of the receipt of this order and shall furnish proof of such payment to the Settlement Commission. The applicant and Jurisdictional Commissioner shall take necessary steps to credit an amount of ₹ 1.72 crore already deposited, under proper Head of Account towards Central Excise duty due and admitted as payable by the applicant. The jurisdictional Commissioner shall submit a report complying with this direction within 30 days of the receipt of this order. 28. Attention of all concerned is drawn to the provisions of section 32-I, particularly sub-section (2) thereof, of the Central Excise Act.
-
2000 (10) TMI 959
... ...
... ... ..... that in the facts and circumstances aforestated, the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is vitiated and that invalidates the detention order. 14. For the reasons indicated above, we allow this writ petition in terms of prayer (a) which reads thus "(a) That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside impugned order of detention bearing No. PSA 1199/57/SPL 3(A) dated 27-10-1999 (Annexure A) hereto issued by Shri G.S. Sandhu, the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Preventive Detention), Home Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032, under section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act against the detenu Mr. Desh Raj Gulati and that the said detenu be released from detention forthwith and be set at liberty". The detenu Desh Raj Gulati be released from detention forthwith, if not required in any other case. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 958
... ...
... ... ..... t the Legislative intention has throughout been to give full credit for the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product to which proforma credit scheme as it stood earlier and the Modvat scheme as it stood upto 1-4-2000, applied. The Rule making authority seems to have proceeded by way of trail and error initially omitting to deal with certain aspects, and later dealing with a part, and finally dealing with the whole, as was done in the case of Rule 57E. Though if Rule 57E as it stood prior to it’s amendment is read in isolation, it may convey the impression that the adjustment is only limited to the cases of refund and not the case of recovery, the object and purpose of the rule as also the scheme of the Modvat would clearly show that would not be proper interpretation of the Rule. We, therefore, hold that the Full Bench of the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 57E is both clarificatory and procedural. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 957
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... same subject-matter can be considered as cogent evidence. In view of the facts taken into consideration by the Tribunal with regard to the diversion of the borrowed funds in purchase of the agricultural lands of which the income was not ploughed back in the account of the firm as admittedly the agricultural income, as per books of account of the assessee’s firm, was distributed amongst the partners and not utilised for reducing the loan utilised for non-business purposes, the Tribunal in no way erred in maintaining the disallowance upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, find that the Tribunal was fully justified in law in upholding the action of the ITO in disallowing part interest for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 notwithstanding that in the earlier assessment year 1975-76, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals). 10. In the result, we answer the question against the assessee and in favour of the department.
-
2000 (10) TMI 955
... ...
... ... ..... rise. The requirement is availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case (supra). Having discussed the issue as above in the contextual facts, we do feel it expedient to record that the action of the Managing Director in the matter of withdrawal of authority as noticed above and subsequent introduction of charges, in particular, the last of the charges as noted above and the further factum of issuance of an eighteen page letter of termination on the self same date and within a few hours after the pretended hearing was given, cannot but be ascribed to be wholly and totally biased. On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions of the appellant. The judgment under appeal, in our view, cannot be faulted in any way whatsoever. The Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (10) TMI 954
... ...
... ... ..... 64; 18% per annum, which direction had not been made while disposing of the writ petitions. Those orders of the High Court, clarifying the earlier order directing payment of interest @ 18% per annum, are also subject matter of appeals in some of these appeals including Civil Appeal No. 3119/95. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in our considered opinion, the direction to pay interest @ 18% per annum must be held to be unreasonable. We, therefore, modify the same and direct that the interest would be paid @ 9% per annum. Civil Appeal Nos.7607/95 and 7472/94 and SLP(Civil) No.21620/94 -- These Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition arise out of judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court had followed the earlier decision in Mahalaxmis case. The said decision in Mahalaxmi, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1995(Supp.) 1 S.C.C.642. Consequently, these appeals and the special leave petition stand dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 953
... ...
... ... ..... signature on all the sheets of the answered questionnaire. However, if he does not wish to give any answer to any of the questions he is free to indicate that fact at the appropriate place in the questionnaire as a matter of precaution the Court may keep photocopy or carbon copy of the questionnaire before it is supplied to the accused for answers . If the accused fails to return the questionnaire duly answered as aforesaid within the time or extended time granted by the court, he shall forfeit his right to seek personal exemption from court during such questioning. In our opinion, if the above course is adopted in exceptional exigency it would not violate the legislative intent envisaged in Section 313 of the Code. In the present case the trial court can pass appropriate orders if an application is made by the accused relating to the examination under Section 313 of the Code, in the light of the legal principles stated above. This criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 952
... ...
... ... ..... l dated October 28, 1998, as the assessment order dated August 28, 1997 which was based on the direction, directions given by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) contained in the order dated September 7, 1996 disappeared when the Tribunal while deciding the appeals against the order dated September 7, 1996 gave some additional directions. I am supported in my view by the decision of the division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Sher Ali Khan v. Prescribed Authority 1978 ALJ 1189. 6.. Under section 10 of the Act the Tribunal has power to set aside and direct the assessing authority to pass fresh order for such further enquiry as may be specified. The assessing authority is bound under law to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The assessing authority is directed to pass fresh assessment order. Thus the revision succeeds and is allowed. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 951
... ...
... ... ..... n, as held by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. 1965 16 STC 563 AIR 1965 SC 1310, which has been followed by the honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Ballarpur Straw Board Mills Ltd. 1978 42 STC 401 and this Court in the case of Sivalik Collulose Ltd. 1992 UPTC 1 cannot be said that it is used either directly or even remotely in the manufacture of finished goods. Similar is the case of steel and paints, which too is required only in the repairs of boiler and protection of machineries. They cannot be said to be used even indirectly in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale. Thus, all the three items would not fall under the description of the word stores , which are used in the manufacture of finished goods. 24.. In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any force in the revision. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 950
... ...
... ... ..... ed an order completing the assessment under section 5-B of the Act without issuing the impugned endorsement. In view of the above, the endorsement issued by the assessing authority is contrary to the observations made by this Court in Mycon Construction Limited s case 1998 111 STC 322. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to sustain the impugned endorsement. Therefore, the same requires to be set aside by this Court. 8.. For the reasons stated, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement issued by the assessing authority dated July 17, 2000 is set aside. The respondent-assessing authority is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated January 13, 2000 in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of the order and also the observations made in Mycon Construction Limited s case 1998 111 STC 322. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 949
... ...
... ... ..... e declaration in the form annexed to the notification or he can prove the requisite fact by other satisfactory evidence produced for the purpose in lieu of the declaration. 8.. In the above view of the fact, we think, it is necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the said proof. 9.. In view of that, the orders passed by the Tribunal in all these cases are set aside and all these cases are sent back to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners will be given an opportunity to produce either the requisite evidence to show the payment of turnover tax by the dealer at the second point of sale. The Tribunal is directed to give the petitioner an opportunity to produce the documents or other relevant records. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal afresh after looking into the documents and after hearing the parties. T.R.Cs. are disposed of as above. Order on C.M.P. No. 485 of 2000 in T.R.C. No. 32 of 2000 dismissed. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 948
Charge for the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Held that:- Dealing with the case of appellant - Mehaboob we notice that Exhibit P-9 statement attributed to him does not contain any inculpatory statement which would involve him either in a conspiracy or in an abetment for the offences committed by other accused. The worst part in the statement - Exhibit P-9 is that he was informed that brown sugar could be supplied to him and he went to the house of A-2 in response to that. It is admitted by the prosecution that no brown sugar had been given to him pursuant to the said offer nor did appellant - Mehaboob part with any money as consideration thereof. Thus it is very difficult to convict appellant - A.K. Mehaboob (A3) on the strength of the statement contained in Exhibit P-9.
We allow Criminal Appeal filed by A.K. Mehaboob (A3) and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him by the High Court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 947
... ...
... ... ..... ober 26, 1991. The imposition of tax at the rate of 10 per cent plus surcharge of 2.5 per cent has been upheld by the Tribunal. However, it has deleted the levy of interest by holding that the assessee was bona fidely disputing its liability to pay tax at the rate of 10 per cent plus 2.5 per cent surcharge. 3.. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the present case the assessee was bona fidely disputing its liability to tax on the sale of brass idols under the entry of art brasswares since very beginning. Thus, in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation reported in 2002 127 STC 258 1999 UPTC 1, the amount of tax cannot be said to be admitted tax under section 8(1) of the Act and, therefore, the interest has rightly been deleted. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 4.. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 946
Constitutional validity of Section 32A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Held that:- Despite holding that Section 32A is unconstitutional to the extent it affects the functioning of the criminal courts in the country, we are not declaring the whole of the section as unconstitutional in view of our finding that the Section, in so far as it takes away the right of the Executive to suspend, remit and commute the sentence, is valid and intra vires of the Constitution. The Declaration of Section 32A to be unconstitutional, in so far as it affects the functioning of the courts in the country, would not render the whole of the section invalid, the restriction imposed by the offending section being distinct and severable.
Holding Section 32A as void in so far as it takes away the right of the courts to suspend the sentence awarded to a convict under the Act, would neither entitle such convicts to ask for suspension of the sentence as a matter of right in all cases nor would it absolve the courts of their legal obligations to exercise the power of suspension of sentence within the parameters prescribed under Section 37 of the Act.
Under the circumstances the writ petitions are disposed of by holding that (1) Section 32A does not in any way affect the powers of the authorities to grant parole; (2) It is unconstitutional to the extent it takes away the right of the court to suspend the sentence of a convict under the Act; (3) Nevertheless, a sentence awarded under the Act can be suspended by the appellate court only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the Act as dealt with in this judgment.
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.l69/99 shall be at liberty to apply for parole and his prayer be considered and disposed of in accordance with the statutory provisions, if any, Jail Manual or Government Instructions without implying Section 32A of the Act as a bar for consideration of the prayer. Similarly petitioner in Writ Petition No.243/99 is at liberty to move the High Court for suspension of sentence awarded to him under the Act. As and when any such application is filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and keeping in view the limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Act and the law laid down by this Court.
-
2000 (10) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, he is entitled to get compensation by way of interest on the amount of refund ultimately calculated from such date at such rate as is directed by the said Courts. (7) Though there is an unprovided field during which period no interest is payable by the State, no direction can be given by this Court unless it is covered by question No. 5 above. (8) The conditions mentioned in the case of Tata Robins 1989 75 STC 277 (Orissa), such as prima facie nature of the case, balance of convenience, loss and injury to be suffered by either party and other germane factors have to be taken into consideration while dealing with the interim matters of stay of the disputed demands under the provisions of the Act. 69.. Now that we have answered all the questions, the cases may be placed before the appropriate division Bench/Benches for disposal in accordance with law. B.N. AGRAWAL, C.J.-I agree. P.K. MOHANTY, J.-I agree. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
