|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 649 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 1217 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Documents - Custody of ... ... ... ... ..... g was mentioned about the passport of the petitioner in both the show-cause notices. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the documents were not utilized due to the lapse on the part of one Govindarajan who appeared belatedly on 13-7-1995. Even in the reply dated 9-11-1995, the respondents did not whisper anything about the alleged belated appearance of the said Govindarajan before them, indeed he appeared and gave statement within a period of four months from the date of seizure of documents from the petitioner. Further, within it is clear that the seized documents were not utilized due to the lapses not on the part of the petitioner. Hence, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the retention of the seized documents under Mahazar-dated 14-3-1995, beyond the period of six months is illegal. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently connected WMP is closed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1215 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Transfer of pending cases ... ... ... ... ..... on whereon it is based . . . rsquo would mean that in the case of an execution application if the decree is for more than Rs. 10 lakhs, then that is the cause of action or the reason for an application for execution being filed before the Tribunal. 5. Thus, the Supreme Court has held that the amount claimed in the execution application is also coming within the words cause of action made mention of in section 31. Naturally, when the Apex Court has pronounced so, that has to be accepted as the final. Consequently, it has to be held that exhibit No. P-5 is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Regarding the other factual aspects and challenges against exhibit No. P-5, I am not pronouncing anything in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank rsquo s case (supra). This court under article 226 or 227 will not interfere with the orders of the specialised Tribunal over which a separate remedy is provided for. Original petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1213 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... rder of winding up, if it is of the opinion that some other alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking winding up, instead of pursuing the said remedy. 7. In the present case, not only the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy, but that they are actually availing of and pursuing that remedy. The promoter of the applicant-company Shri Ajit Kumar Gupta, is a petitioner in Company Petition No. 14 of 1999 before the CLB. This court has every reason to believe that the interest of Shri Ajit Kumar Gupta who also holds the shares in the respondent-company will be protected by the CLB, in case any scheme is formulated, or any arrangement is proposed, in exercise of the powers under sections 397 and 398. I find that the apprehension that he will not be heard, is wholly unfounded. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this company petition under section 433(f) is not maintainable, and is, dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the proceedings of the Board were vitiated on account of participation of the disciplinary authority, while deciding the appeal preferred by the appellant?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. In view of the definition of the expression ‘Board’, the Board could have constituted a Committee of the Board/management or any officer of the company by excluding Chairman-cum-managing director of the company and delegated any of its powers, including the appellate power, to such a Committee to eliminate any allegation of bias against such an appellate authority. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the rule against bias is not available in the present case in the view of the ‘doctrine of necessity’. We are, therefore, of the view that reliance of the doctrine of necessity in the present case is totally misplaced.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1210 - SUPREME COURT
insurance premium in Pound Sterling - Held that:- The respondent has paid the insurance premium in Indian currency and continued to have title over the goods as it never passed to the consignee. Had the title passed to the consignee, and if they had preferred the claim, the insurance amount would have been payable in London in Pound Sterling. The National Commission did not notice these points and directed the appellant to pay the amount in Pound Sterling mainly on the ground that the policies issued by them stated that the insurance amount was payable at London.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that the appellant is liable to pay the insurance amount in Pound Sterling.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1209 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Export and transfer of securities - Regulation of ... ... ... ... ..... ith the evidence, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab 1980 2 SCC 565. There could be no dispute about this proposition of law. Each case depends on its own facts. Here the investigations are still in progress. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, looking into the nature and seriousness of the allegations, in my considered view, release of the petitioner on bail, at this stage, may frustrate the effort of investigating agency to collect evidence. Investigations into the white collar crimes are always complex and take more time, particularly when these are also required to be carried out abroad. Hence, no case for grant of bail, at this stage, is made out and the application is dismissed. Any observation made herein shall not affect the merits of the case during the trial.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Mysore Paper Mills which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and which is a Government-company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act falls within the meaning of the word ‘State’ as defined in article 12 of the Constitution of India ?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The indisputable fact that the appellant-company is a Government company as envisaged in section 617 attracting section 619 of the Companies Act, that more than 97 per cent of the share capital has been contributed by the State Government and the financial institutions controlled and belonging to the Government of India on the security and undertaking of the State Government, that the amendments introduced to the memorandum of association in the year 1994 introducing articles 5A and 5B entrusts the appellant-company with important public duties obligating to undertake, permit, sponsor rural development and for social and economic welfare of the people in rural areas by undertaking programmes to assist and promote activities for the growth of national economy which are akin and related to the public duties of the State, that out of 12 directors 5 are Government and departmental persons, besides other elected directors also are to be with the concurrence and nomination of the Government and the various other form of supervision and control, as enumerated supra, will go to show that the State Government had deep and pervasive control of the appellant-company and its day-to-day administration, and consequently confirm the position that the appellant-company is nothing but an instrumentality and agency of the State Government and the physical form of company is merely a cloak or cover for the Government. Despite best and serious efforts made on behalf of the appellant, the decision under challenge has not been shown to suffer any infirmity whatsoever to call for interference in our hands.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1206 - SUPREME COURT
Punishment of reprimanding the advocate concerned - Held that:- The misappropriation remained unabated even after the disciplinary proceedings commenced, and it continued even till now as the delinquent advocate did not care to return even a single pie to the client. The misconduct of the appellant-advocate became more aggravated when he determined to forge an affidavit in the name of his client, which he produced before the Disciplinary Committee in order to defraud his client, and to deceive the Disciplinary Committee to believe that he and his client had settled the dispute by making a late payment to his client.
Facts of this case is so glaring that the misconduct of the appellant in the present case is of a far graver dimension. Hence we dispose of this appeal by imposing the punishment of removal of the name of the appellant from the roll of the advocates. He would, thus, stand debarred from practising in any court or before any authority.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1203 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sick Industrial Company - Winding up of ... ... ... ... ..... s at bay. This aspect of the matter has been thoroughly examined by the Board and again by the Appellate Authority and we are satisfied that the provisions of the Act were strictly complied with. There is no reason for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. In view of the huge debt liability of the company, the Board consisting of the experts in the field have found that the company is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumulated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations. In this view of the matter, the company is not likely to become viable in future and the Board was justified in holding that it was just, equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up. There is no error of law or fact either in the order of the Board or in the one passed by the Appellate Authority. 3. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Excisability - Marketability - Yeast - Manufacture/propagation of yeast for captive consumption
-
2002 (1) TMI 1187 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... o disallow Modvat credit, particularly, in view of wordings of Rule 57R(5) and the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act made in 1998 with effect from 1-4-94. Unless depreciation is allowed by Income-tax department, credit is not to be denied though claimed in the return by the assessee. Therefore both the appeals are remanded back to the lower adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority shall examine whether depreciation claimed on revenue expenditure under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act would be a bar to claim the Modvat credit in view of the wordings of Rule 57R(5) of the rules ibid and the amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made in 1998, with effect from 1-4-94. We, therefore, direct the original authority to reconsider the depreciation as contended by the ld. Counsels after affording an opportunity to the appellants to produce all the documents in support of their case. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1186 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... bserved that ldquo As a matter of fact I find that, in view of the gravity of the offence and the margin of profit involved on such goods, the R.F. imposed in this case is already on a lower side and, therefore, a lenient view has already been taken by the adjudicating authority rdquo . Without going into the other pleas raised by both sides, we find quantum of margin of profit is not forthcoming in the respective orders as pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant. In view of this position, we are of the view that this matter will have to go back for reconsideration. In the view we have taken, we are remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to work out, to what extent, margin of profit involved on such goods in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act in imposing the redemption fine and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1185 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Packing material after use not waste and scrap - Modvat - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... 1996 (83) E.L.T. 358 (T). 2. emsp On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon a series of decisions including that of the Tribunal in the case of Castrol India Ltd. reported in 1998 (99) E.L.T. 234 (T), decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was also brought to our notice that the view taken by the Tribunal, has already been upheld by Supreme Court, reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. A184. Since the issue involved herein has already been considered by the Apex Court, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the department, in the result this appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and Penalty - Re-export of goods ... ... ... ... ..... the goods, in question, the facility of Special Import License was available in respect of the gold jewellery. In a similar situation, in respect of Import Export Policy, which was amended w.e.f. 1-4-2001, the Tribunal in the case of Alukkas Exporters (supra), allowed re-export of the gold jewellery without fine and penalty. While allowing the re-export, the Tribunal relied upon the earlier decisions in the case of M/s. HCL Hewlett Packard Ltd. v. C.C. reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 367 (T) and in the case of Shubh Gems v. C.C.E. reported in 2000 (121) E.L.T. 426 (T) 2000 (40) RLT 1087 . 6. emsp In view of the above decisions of the Tribunal and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case that when the goods, in question, had been allowed to re-export, the question of imposing any redemption fine and penalty does not arise, therefore set aside the same and allow the re-export of goods without any redemption fine or penalty. The appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1183 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... . Therefore, we see no reason why credit is to be denied on the strength of Bs/E Nos. 17249 and 17289, dated 27-4-94 and 28-4-94 and hence hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit of Rs. 12,36,470.00. Regarding the remaining 2 Bs/E viz. 2731 and 2732, dated 29-7-94, we find that there is nothing on the documents themselves to show that the goods imported were sent by the importers to the appellants for the purpose of conversion of the same into rolls of small size. Although, the ld. Counsel produced a letter from the appellants stating that they have received the imported inputs directly from the Docks under the instructions of the Customs, this is not sufficient. What is required is the correspondence from the importers in this regard. This is missing in this case. Therefore, we hold that the appellants are not entitled to credit of Rs. 12,76,276/- availed on the 2 Bs/E viz. 2731 and 2732, dated 29-7-94. 3. emsp In the result the appeal is partly allowed as above.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... parts/components of goods falling under CH 85.16 and CH 85.39. The goods falling under these Headings were expressly excluded from the category of modvatable capital goods under Sl. No. 3 of the Table to Rule 57Q. As per Sl. No. 5 of the Table to the Rule 57Q, Modvat credit was admissible on components, spares and accessories of the capital goods covered by Sl. Nos. 1 to 4 of that Table. But goods falling under CH 85.16 and 85.39, which were specifically excluded from the coverage of modvatable capital goods under Sl. No. 3, did not belong to the category of ldquo goods covered by, or specified against, Sl. No. 3 rdquo . Therefore, components or parts of goods falling under CH 85.16 and 85.39 did not come within the description of goods under Sl. No. 5 of the Table to Rule 57Q as this rule stood during the material period, i.e., after 1-3-97. The lower appellate authority has erred by holding to the contrary. The impugned order is set aside and the present appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plant assembled at site - Dutiability - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ated hoists with trolleys, vibrators, built ware, switch gears, H.T. Cables, transformers etc..... We observe from the photographs produced during hearings that the plant consists of large civil structures, lengthy conveyor belts and civil structures to support such conveyor belts, called feeders, etc. spread over several hectares of land. It is not a case of machinery and plant being fixed to earth merely for vibration free functioning. They are immovable property. rdquo This decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as the Civil Appeal No. D19205/1999 filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 19-4-2001. Following the ratio of the said decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals. rdquo 3. emsp As the Coal Handling Plant has been held to be immovable and hence not excisable and the appeal filed by M/s. Elecon Engg. Co. Ltd. has already been allowed, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1178 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Additional Excise duty under Additional Duties of Excise ... ... ... ... ..... pting the contention of the respondents that in terms of Rule 13(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules and Notification No. 47/94-C.E., goods exported under bond are not subject to the levy of additional excise duty, we remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification of the assessees rsquo submission regarding 100 export under bond. If on such verification, it is found that the assessees rsquo claim is correct, then the question of levy of additional excise duty does not arise. On the other hand, if it is found on verification that made-up articles manufactured out of processed fabrics were cleared in the domestic tariff area, then they would be liable to additional excise duty as reference in Not. No. 67/95 to lsquo whole of duty of excise rsquo is confined to basic excise duty. 4. emsp The impugned order, thus set aside, the case remanded for fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the light of the above guidelines. 5. emsp Appeals thus allowed by remand.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Abatement of duty ... ... ... ... ..... at the due intimation was given and he has referred to the copy of the fax message placed on record at page 56, dated 27-1-99. The Counsel has also referred to copy of another fax message dated 3-2-99 vide which the intimation regarding start of plant was given. He has also referred to the similar copies of the fax messages dated 22-2-99 and 4-3-99. But all these documents appear to had not been considered by the Commissioner while deciding the matter. This omission on his part has certainly resulted in mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner deserves to be set aside on this score alone. 8. emsp In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-examining the abatement claims of the appellants in accordance with law, after affording them an opportunity of hearing. The appeal of the appellants, accordingly, stands allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1175 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... dings. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions, I notice that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly applied his mind and has correctly come to the conclusion after examining the facts that, assessees did not have any intention to avail wrongly the credit in the matter. Assessees themselves reversed it and informed the department. The department issued SCN thereafter. Now, it is well settled that unless the intention to evade duty or intention to wrongful availment of Modvat credit is shown, penalty is not leviable as held by the Apex Court. The Tribunal also has held that merely because assessee avails the Modvat credit, on his wrong interpretation of Rule 57F(1) that by itself is not a ground to impose penalty as held in AASK, (supra). Likewise, the Tribunal in the case of TELCO has set aside the penalty on the appellant having depositing the amounts even before revenue initiated proceedings. Therefore, there is no merit in the revenue appeal and same is rejected.
............
|
