|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... this period was not granted on merits. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the said submission advanced on behalf of petitioners that the bail granted to the petitioners by ACMM, New Delhi was regular. To be noted that by the order dated 12th October, 2001 the bail was declined to all the three petitioners and they were ordered to be taken into judicial custody. 6. On merits, it was, lastly, urged that petitioners can even be let off by imposing fine under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, they deserve to be released on bail. Copy of complaint filed against the petitioners is placed at pages 17 to 56 in Crl. M. (M) 3871/2001. Department alleges therein the involvement of all the petitioners in evasion of customs duty worth crores of rupees by them. In the facts and circumstances of case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for admitting the petitioners on bail. 7. Consequently, Crl. M. (M) Nos. 3871/2001, 3855/2001 and Crl. M. (M) 3852/2001 are dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... gnizable as deemed non-duty paid. The authorities misdirected themselves in holding that since the railway was not registered with the Central Excise Department, the sale by it through auction cannot lead to the inference that the goods auctioned were duty paid. The benefit of Notification was wrongly denied to the petitioners. 12.In view of the foregoing discussions the petitions deserve to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 deserve to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202 of 1988-C.E., dated 20-5-88 as amended by subsequent Notification No. 33 of 1992-C.E., dated 1-3-92. The petitions are, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders passed by respondent no. 2 as affirmed by respondent no. 1 are hereby quashed and it is declared that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 202 of 1988-C.E., dated 20-5-88 as amended by subsequent Notification No. 33 of 1992-C.E., dated 1-3-1992.
-
2001 (12) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... is not extended in the case of manufacturing of parts and accessories of such goods. Undoubtedly such question is a question of law but since it relates to determination of rate of Excise Duty payable thereon, the conclusion is irresistible that the reference under Section 35(G) is not envisaged under the Act of 1944. Such an order is directly challenged to Supreme Court under Section 35L. 8. The Tribunal therefore, was not in error in holding that no reference application lay for determination of such questions. As we do not find that the reference application is maintainable under sub-section (1) no application under sub-section (3) of 35G can be maintained which can be invoked only on failure of the Tribunal to make reference under 35(G)(1) it does not extend the scope of reference which can be directed by High Court by making reference of such questions which are not referable under Section 35(G)(1). 9. The application, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 83 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Re-export
... ... ... ... ..... osed by the authorities. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner is not going to import the articles and use or sell the articles within India, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 33,000/- should be quashed. 5.The learned Counsel appearing for the Department has opposed to this stating that the petitioner has violated and the penalty has been rightly imposed. 6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the imposition of penalty of Rs. 33,000/-, keeping in view the relevant value of the articles concerned, appears to be grossly high and interest of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to Rs. 15,000/- and such amount should be paid by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Only after the amount is paid, the petitioner would be permitted to re-export the items concerned. 7.In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps. are closed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Reference to High Court - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ase (supra). The Apex Court considering the Rule 57A(1) of the Central Excise Rules, found that the said rule does not in any way specify that the inputs have to be utilised within the factory premises. Dealing with Rule 57J, the Court expressed that even in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of intermediate product which product is then used for the manufacture of a final product, the manufacturer would be allowed credit on the duty paid in respect of the input. The Court concluded that - On the explosives a duty had been paid and the appellants would be entitled to claim credit because the explosives were used for the manufacture of the intermediate product, namely limestone which, in turn, was used for the manufacture of cement. 8.Consequently, following the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement s case (supra), the reference is answered in favour of the petitioner assessee and against the Department. A copy of this order may be sent to the CEGAT.
-
2001 (12) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Search and seizure - Marking of goods ... ... ... ... ..... d and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion. It also cannot rule out any malaice. 6. Under the circumstances, taken into totality of the matter I am of the view that the search and seizure as made by the authority cannot be allowed to continue any more. Therefore, the same is quashed under this order. As a result whereof the petitioner is directed to place the order before the Criminal Court for necessary action at the earliest. 7. Thus the writ petition stands disposed of. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Let xeroxed certified copy of this Judgment be supplied to the parties by the department within seven days from the date of putting in requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. 10. All parties are to Act on a xeroxed signed copy minutes of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking and as per the satisfaction of the officer of this Court in respect as above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Anti-dumping duty, leviability of ... ... ... ... ..... ide alternative forum the writ jurisdiction can only be used sparingly where situation is so prevailing that the Court will have no other alternative but to construe that the finding is bad from the face of it on the plain reading. 15.Upon holding the same I dismiss the writ petition. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, no order is passed as to costs. However, this order will not prevent the petitioner either to prefer appeal or to make review before CEGAT Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law at the appropriate time if so advised. 16.Xeroxed certified copies of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisites for drawing up and completion of the order and certified copy of this judgment. 17.All parties are to Act on a signed copy minute of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking and subject to satisfaction of the Officer of the Court in respect as above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Duty drawback ... ... ... ... ..... r and/or jurisdiction to withhold the payment of drawback on any circumstances if all the conditions are fulfilled laid down under law. However, while processing the application it would be open for the department to make any enquiry as to whether there was any real export or not and in appropriate situation it would be further open for the department too to refuse release any drawback, if it is found there is no export in such sense. The authority concerned shall be vigilant that no fraud is allowed to be perpetrated as against beneficial statutory provision. In this case I find that there are materials and grounds for which investigation and enquiry are to be undertaken. Therefore, I direct the department concerned to finalize this matter in respect of the petitioner s claim for drawback and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The same shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 24.There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hazardous waste ... ... ... ... ..... of the Court. They have rather brought it to the notice of the Court as to the chinks in the ex-parte order obtained by the petitioner/plaintiff. It was on their representation that samples were sent to three laboratories. All the three laboratories were unanimous on the point that goods were off specification and contained several contaminers and waste. 15.Schedule I of the aforesaid rules which are relevant and governing rules do bring such goods within the ambit and list of hazardous waste. Even otherwise such goods which are of hazardous nature and suffer from various contaminers cannot be allowed to be floated in the market. 16.A party can be held guilty for contempt if it has intentionally, deliberately or mala fidely disobeyed the orders of the Court. Not otherwise. In the instant case, the bona fides of defendant Nos. 1 and 2/respondent are writ large and therefore I abjure them from the accusation of contempt. 17.The application has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Supplementary instructions ... ... ... ... ..... thers v. State of U.P. and others - AIR 1987 SC 1676 whereupon the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon, it-has been held as under This memorandum is nothing but an administrative order or instruction and as such it cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules by adding something therein as has been observed by this Court in Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1967) 1 SCR 111 (AIR 1967 SC 1910). 5. By reasons of the administrative order the existing rules have neither been amended nor superseded. In Kerala Financial Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax - AIR 1994 SC 2416, the Apex Court has laid down that circulars cannot detract from the provisions of the Act. As indicated above, by reasons of paragraph 3.11 of the Chapter 5 of the Central Excise Manual the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner had the jurisdiction to issue the same, in terms of Rule 31, for the reasons aforementioned. There is no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
EXIM Policy - Import under OGL - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... spondents alleging breach of Government of India, Import Control Order No. 17/55, dated 7-12-1955 issued under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. 4.The petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court to take exception to the above show cause notice. Having heard the parties to the petition, there appears to be no dispute between the parties that in view of the clarification dated 24th June, 1985 issued by the Director General of Technical Development the import of polytetrafluoroethylene pigmented or non-pigmented is covered under OGL vide entry No. 23, Part 3 of List 8 of Appendix 6 of Import-Export Policy 1985-88, subject to the conditions laid down therein. 5.In view of the above clarification, the show cause notice issued on 18th March, 1988 Exhibit-H (page 55) was unwarranted. The same is, therefore, liable quashed and set aside. 6.In the result, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... onally not dealing with the decision in Tetragon s case lest the interest of either side should be affected. 8.Mr. Sarin submits that the deposit of Rs. 1 crore would result in blockade of money. Thus, the Authority should be directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. 9.The request is fair. It is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondents. 10.In view of the above, we uphold the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is, however, directed that the appeal shall be decided by the competent authority within three months from the date of deposit by the petitioner. The deposit of Rs. 1 crore may be made by the petitioner within two weeks from today. On making the deposit, the petitioner shall inform the Authority. It is clarified that in case, the petitioner s appeal is accepted, the deposit would be refunded alongwith interest as provided for under the Act within one month from the date of the decision. The writ petition is, disposed of, in the above terms. No costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Auction of goods - Strictures against Customs Department ... ... ... ... ..... . 1, in our considered opinion, cannot avoid its liability by throwing the blame on the second respondent. The second Respondent was merely a custodian in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 45. Even if the goods have been sold in violation of the circular letter issued by the Customs Authority, proper steps can be taken against the custodian of the goods but for that purpose, the petitioner cannot be deprived of its legitimate dues. 14.We, therefore, are of the view that interest of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the first respondent to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 65 lakhs to the petitioner herein with interest 12 p.a. from August, 1995 till the date of actual payment. However, the first respondent will be at liberty to realise the said amount either in whole or part to which it may be entitled to from the second respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner shall also be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.
-
2001 (12) TMI 73 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... efore us on behalf of the assessee that relevant material was before the Tribunal and, if required, it could have asked for more but it should have disposed of the appeal itself instead of making the order of remand. The learned Attorney General has agreed that this is the appropriate course to follow. If the Tribunal required more evidence, it could have called for the same. 4. We think that, given the facts and circumstances, this is a fair view to take. 5. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The appeals before the Tribunal (E/451/92 MAS and E/1304/2000 MAS) are remanded to the Tribunal for being heard and disposed of afresh in the light of what we have stated above. 6. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Whether two learned judges of this court can disagree with a judgment of three learned judges of this court and whether, for that reason, they can refer the matter before them directly to a Bench of five judges?
Held that:- Judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two learned judges should follow a decision of a Bench of three learned judges. But if a Bench of two learned judges concludes that an earlier judgment of three learned judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three learned judges setting out, as has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three learned judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five learned judges is justified.
Thus are of the view that these matters could only have been referred to a Bench of three learned judges. We, accordingly, order that they shall be placed before a Bench of three learned judges. Having regard to the lapse of time, they shall be so placed in January, 2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 70 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Tax on Land And Buildings, Assessment, Nature of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ober 28, 1997 and the demand notices issued in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. (b) It is declared that no fresh proceedings can be carried out in respect of land and building which has been once subjected to assessment and the option under the one-time tax scheme has been made in respect thereof. (c) Section 13(1)(b) and section 15(b), as referred to hereinabove and quoted hereinbelow 13. (1)(b) is acquired, by transfer or otherwise and Explanation, .acquired by transfer or otherwise used in clause (b) of this sub-section shall not include acquisition by inheritance. 15. (b) any change having taken place in the ownership of the land or building except by way of inheritance or , are declared ultra vires the Constitution of India and, consequently, the impugned orders and proceedings being non est and without jurisdiction are set aside. (d) The order of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal dated December 8, 1997, is set aside. There shall, however, no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We fail to see what doubt there can be about the legal position after the Supreme Court had laid down the law, the law having been laid down in the case of Mahendra Mills 2000 243 ITR 56 already referred to. The Supreme Court therein categorically held that the words, actually allowed with reference to depreciation does not mean notionally allowed and that depreciation cannot be granted even when it is not claimed. As observed by the court, a privilege, namely, a privilege of claiming depreciation cannot be turned into a disadvantage even when the assessee does not claim depreciation and an option given to the assessee cannot be made into an obligation. The amendment relied upon by the Revenue as and when it takes effect can be considered only after it has taken effect and though prima facie we are not persuaded to hold that there is any doubt with regard to the legal position, the interpretation of that provision can be considered only after that provision comes into force.
-
2001 (12) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2856 2001 8 SCC 607 in the following words We are informed that several High Courts, overlooking the said ban, are granting stay of proceedings involving offences under the Act pending before courts of Special Judges. This might be on account of a possible chance of missing the legislative ban contained in clause (c) of sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Act because the title to section 19 is Previous sanction necessary for prosecution . It would have been more advisable if the prohibition contained in sub-section (3) had been included in a separate section by providing a separate distinct title. Be that as it may, that is no ground for bypassing the legislative prohibition contained in the sub-section. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest would be payable in a case, where tax has not been deposited prior to the due date of filing of the income tax return. This writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinabove, but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (12) TMI 67 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any of the properties or effects of the company after such commencement shall be void. (2) Nothing in this section applies to any proceedings for the recovery of any tax or impost or any dues payable to the Government. In the circumstances, the stand taken by the respondent is not tenable and in view of the specific plea in the counter, it is further prayed to grant ten equal half-yearly instalments to clear the amounts due to the applicant herein and pass such other order or orders as this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case , which is substantially an admission of liability, the application is allowed as prayed for, directing the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.11,60,461 with interest at 18 per cent. per annum with effect from August 19, 1998, till the date of realization within a period of two months from today, failing which the official liquidator is at liberty to recover the same by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
-
2001 (12) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll pay the assessee s costs. Counsel s fee Rs.500. The decisions referred to hereinbefore, in no uncertain terms, clearly show that the mesne profits which are yet to be determined, do not come within the purview of an accrued income for the purpose of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act. In that view of the matter, question No. 1 must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As a logical corollary, question No. 2 must also be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, we may place on record that after a period of two years, by an interim order passed by the court, some amount had been directed to be paid to the assessee herein which the assessee had shown in its return without prejudice to his rights and contentions. We do not intend to express any opinion on the merits so far as the contention of the assessee is concerned that despite the same, the income accrued by it, is not taxable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
....
|
