|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 524 Records
-
2002 (8) TMI 793 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remand - Re-adjudication in violation of remand order - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... vy Scheme and pay the duty on the basis of actual production. The Commissioner as is evident from the impugned order has taken the view contrary to the above referred judgment of the Apex Court and observed that the appellants could not give an option for paying the duty on the actual production basis and were bound by the Compounded Levy Scheme and their duty liability had to be determined under the said scheme. 5. emsp Since the impugned order of the Commissioner is contrary to the ratio of the law laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the above referred case, we have no option but to set aside the same. The adjudicating authority is directed to re-determine the duty liability of the appellants on the basis of actual production, from the date and time of their option, permissible under the law, keeping in view the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, referred to above, after hearing both sides. 6. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (8) TMI 792 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Exemption - Availment of - Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... appellant. The answer that the departmental representative furnishes is that since the finished goods are exempted from duty, the benefit of the Modvat rules will not be applicable in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of these finished goods, and therefore the provision of Rule 57F(4) will not apply. We accept the correctness of this contention in principle. It does not follow from this however that the duty liability falls on the appellant before us. If the provisions of Rule 57F(4) were not available, the job worker is not entitled to sent inputs that he processes to the supplier of these inputs without payment of duty he would have to pay duty on these unless of course, some other exemption were available. The liability to duty that would fall upon the job worker therefore could not have been transferred to the appellant. There was therefore no basis for demanding duty and imposing penalty. 8. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (8) TMI 791 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... e known to the officers of the department by any means of the intended activity, the fact that the classification list was not filed would not by itself have the applicability of the extended period of limitation. The Commissioner has not at all dealt with the availability of the exemption or Modvat credit or proforma credit. We are of the view that these aspects should at least now be examined by him and a finding is given. The counsel for the appellant undertakes to place before the Commissioner material to establish its claim of Modvat or proforma credit and to notification 121/94 and to make submissions on limitation within a month from the receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall, after considering these claims, and if necessary after considering the material that the department may produce, pass orders in accordance with law on the aspect of limitation and the other aspects specified above. 6. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (8) TMI 790 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... ns of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal, cited hereunder - (i) M/s. IFFCO Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad 1996 (86) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) (ii) M/s. Century Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur 1997 (95) E.L.T. 655 (Tribunal) (iii) M/s. A.C.C. Ltd. v. C.C.E, Chandigarh, 1998 (97) E.L.T. 379 . 5. emsp On a perusal of the grounds raised by the appellant, I find that there is no challenge to the reliance placed by the lower appellate authority on the aforecited case law. The appellant has not disputed that the Tribunal by Final Order No. A/940/2000-NB, dated 16-7-2001 2001 (132) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal) held Conveyor Belts to be eligible capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. It is also not disputed that, in Century Cements (supra), the Tribunal held that Conveyor Belts and Dust Collecting Bags were eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q for Modvat credit. Thus the issues involved in these appeals stand settled in favour of the assessee. The appeals fail and the same are rejected.
-
2002 (8) TMI 789 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Valuation - Confiscation - Penalty - Re-export - Baggage ... ... ... ... ..... Re-shipments should be allowed on nominal token fines. We would consider therefore a fine of Rs. 1.50 lakhs (Rs. One Lakh and Fifty thousand only) to be sufficient in the case, when we consider that the goods are anti-smoking and/or nicotine addiction cure remedies and like goods we would reduce the fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1.50 lakhs (Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand only) and order that the re- shipment be made under Customs supervision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. (e) Since we do not find Smt. Parmar to be liable for a penalty, we would order that the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act imposed on her is set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would also accept the plea of Sri Parmar and reduce the penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs imposed under Section 112(a) to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only). 7. emsp In view of our findings, these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (8) TMI 788 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Motor vehicle - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... on the material evidence on record particularly gate passes produced by the party. He clearly held that the Department has not made any investigation at the suppliers end to ascertain whether the duty on the chassis was paid or not. The burden lies on the Department as it was rightly analysed by the Commissioner in the impugned order. No evidence has been placed on record that the Department has discharged the burden. This cannot be shifted to the assessee. In the absence of such evidence the Commissioner is just right in observing that it is not correct to recover the duty from the assessee. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court while arriving at the decision. The Departmental Representative tried to distinguish the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court to the facts of this case but in vain. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find any flaw in the impugned order and accordingly we uphold the impugned order. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 787 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ust by a person having knowledge of smuggled origin, the seller and purchaser and the quantity of gold is to be established by the authorities. In this case there is only a vague statement that seized currency is a sale proceed of smuggled gold. There was nothing on record to show that what quantity of smuggled gold was sold to any buyer and how the seized foreign currency is a sale proceed of gold sold in India. The ratio of decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India (Supra) is not applicable on the facts of the present case as Shri Sunil Gulati retracted his statement. 9. emsp The appellants are not claiming the seized currency nor challenging the order of confiscation in respect of the seized currency. The seizure of car and imposition of penalty on the present appellants on the basis of retracted un-corroborated statement of one appellant are not sustainable. Hence, set aside the impugned order and the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 786 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Arbitrators ... ... ... ... ..... referred to above advanced on behalf of respondents is, therefore, repelled being without any merit. Decision in Hiralal Pannalall v. Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. AIR 1978 Cal. 119 has no applicability to the facts of this case. Since respondents have failed to appoint arbitrator to adjudicate the petitioner rsquo s claim for Rs. 12,86,400 with interest despite receipt of aforesaid communications dated 3-1-2000 and 4-4-2000, an arbitrator deserves to be appointed by the Court to adjudicate the said claim. 7. For the foregoing discussion, while allowing petition, Justice R.P. Gupta (Retd.) is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the claim referred to in the preceding paragraph. He will make the award in accordance with law. His fee shall not exceed Rs. 75,000 which will be borne equally by both the parties. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the arbitrator on 23-9-2002 at 10.30 a.m. Registry will ensure that a copy of this order is sent to the arbitrator expeditiously.
-
2002 (8) TMI 785 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Interim measures, etc., by the court ... ... ... ... ..... vice in this circle and, therefore, continuity of the service is ensured to the customers and, therefore, there is no question of any harassment or inconvenience faced by them. 9. Thus having considered the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be unjustified or harsh by any standard, rather the same appear to be eminently justified. Even otherwise it is well-settled that the discretion exercised by the learned trial court in the matter of grant or refusal of an injunction is not to be lightly interfered in appeal, unless the exercise of such discretion is shown to be wholly unjust or arbitrary which position does not exist in the present case. In the result we find no merits in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is allowed two weeks rsquo time from today to comply with the order dated 31st May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge.
-
2002 (8) TMI 784 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Directions not to dispose of assets ... ... ... ... ..... learned Magistrate before whom the cases are pending and the learned Magistrate will examine the matter keeping in mind the discussions made in this judgment. . . . (p. 756) 4. It is well-settled that such objections should first have been taken by the petitioner before the Magistrate, who could have decided the same on merits after consideration of material put before him. This Court in exercise of inherent powers vested in it under section 482 of the Code cannot decide such factual matters, which arise in a case after considering additional material, which was not put in trial Court but has been produced before this Court. 5. Hence, this petition is dismissed with the direction that the petitioner should raise the point before the trial Court, who shall decide the same after consideration of materials put before it, in accordance with the directions of this Court and Hon rsquo ble Apex Court. Parties shall remain present before trial Court on 9-9-2002. Petition dismissed.
-
2002 (8) TMI 783 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... 4 per cent per annum stands admitted. However, keeping in view the rival claims, I do not think it appropriate to grant interest at the admitted rate. In my opinion, interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum would meet the ends of justice so far as this winding-up petition is concerned. However, since the Petitioners had indicated their willingness to settle the claims of the Respondent at Rs. 20 lakhs, it would be equitable to permit, this deduction from the aforementioned sum of Rs. 54.18 lakhs. Accordingly, the Respondent-Company, Indian Airlines, is directed to tentatively deposit with the Registrar of this Court the sum of Rupees forty lakhs within four weeks from today. If there is a failure on its part to make this deposit within the time allowed, citation to be published in the Indian Express (English) Delhi Edition, Nav Bharat Times (Hindi) and Delhi Gazette, returnable on 7th November, 2002. 12. The Petition be renotified on 7th November, 2002. Order accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 782 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
misconception of affairs of Official Liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... sconception of the affairs of the office of the Official Liquidator, are wholly devoid of substance. The petitioner, who appears to be merely a busybody, has arrogated to himself the role of overseer and watch-dog of the functioning of the respondent No. 3, and abused the machinery of this Court by invoking the special and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court through this petition, which is nothing more than a mass of confusion. His unworthy action has resulted in wholly unjustified and uncalled for harassment of the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 3. It is a fit case where the Court ought to impose costs to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, as has been done in the instant case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No. 3, within a period of three months. Notice is discharged. 9. No orders on Civil Application Nos. 11064/2001 and 11065/2001.
-
2002 (8) TMI 781 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ted it for the whole claimed amount, i.e., Rs. 10,36,353.83. Once he found that out of the claimed amount a sum of Rs. 53,000 had already been paid by the appellant-company, such amount should have been deducted from the claimed amount. The again, we have seen that Camellia rsquo s alleged debt amounting to Rs. 1,36,027.36 could not be included in the respondent rsquo s claimed amount. This amount could not form part of the amount for which the said company petition could be admitted. In the result, we allow this appeal in part. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the said company petition will stand admitted for the sum of Rs. 8,47,326.47, and not for Rs. 10,36,353.83 and the respondent will be entitled to make the advertisement, in the event the appellant-company fails to pay the said amount within a period of one month from date. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. T. Chatterjee, J. - I agree. Appeal allowed in part.
-
2002 (8) TMI 780 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Suspension of legal proceedings, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... our order dated 19-7-2002 does just the reverse, namely benefiting the rich and the prosperous. It is well known that often unscrupulous businessmen transfer the funds of their own company to some secret account and only when the husk of the Company remains they transfer it to BIFR and thus the workers, the Government, financial institutions etc. suffer. Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of crores of dues of banks etc. have been held up because of section 22 of the aforesaid Act and in this way financial Institutions and banks also suffer. We therefore, recommended to the Central Government to consider repeal of the Sick Industrial Companies Act as it does not seem to have served any purpose, rather it has done a lot of mischief. 22. Let Registrar General of this Court send a copy of this order to the Union Law Secretary, New Delhi, the Secretary, Company Affairs, Union of India, New Delhi and the Chairman, Law Commission of India, New Delhi forthwith. Order accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 779 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... w, I shall take up the second point for consideration. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for both the parties rather go to show that despite the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and even the Companies Act the proceeding of the depositor before the Forum is quite maintainable. I like to make it clear here that section 446 of the Companies Act deals with the stay of the proceeding pending on the date of winding up order. But in view of my decision as regards the first point hereinbefore I am inclined to hold that despite the alternative remedy provided in the Consumer Act itself, the present proceeding is quite maintainable in view of the provisions of section 446 of the Companies Act. 14. In fine I am to hold that the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are all maintainable in the present Forum. 15. The order passed in C.O. No. 1235 of 2002 shall govern the other C.Os. namely C.O. 1238 of 2002 and C.O. 1259 of 2002. Order accordingly.
-
2002 (8) TMI 778 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up - Power to summon persons suspected of having property of company, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... dishonest and afterthought. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no liability of the respondent to pay the interest and that too 12 p.a. He has failed to show any such agreement or other evidence on record in support of this claim. It is the case of taking of the loan for purchase of tractor and trolley and it would have been certainly subject to payment of interest. Interest free loan otherwise also difficult to accept would have been advanced by the company. Be that as it may, burden lies on the respondent to prove that there was no liability to pay interest which he utterly failed to discharge. 11. In the result, this application succeeds and the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,48,000, principle amount and interest thereon 12 p.a. from 1-4-1994 till the date of payment thereof. The respondent is further directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as costs of this application. This amount of cost on receipt thereof to be kept in the common pool of the companies.
-
2002 (8) TMI 777 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Arbitral award ... ... ... ... ..... tioning that arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution forum. Its object, apart from many others, is to ensure expeditious solution of problems and/or disputes. It cannot afford to remain a passive onlooker to one party rsquo s determined non-co-operation or wilful and conscious absence. Law does not always necessarily demand dotting of every lsquo i rsquo and cutting of every lsquo t rsquo - more so, in the context of an arbitral proceeding. In the present case, appellant rsquo s grievance regarding independence and integrity of Mr. S.K. Poddar does not seem to have any rational basis. And, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that there has been any violation of the principle of natural justice. As such, we share the views of the Learned Trial Judge and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xerox certified copy of this Judgment/Order on the usual undertaking.
-
2002 (8) TMI 776 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Arbitrators ... ... ... ... ..... by the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him. 4. Bare reading of above sub-section (5) would show that before filing petition the party demanding appointment of arbitrator has to request the other party in writing to concur in the appointment of sole arbitrator out of the names of persons suggested, within 30 days of the receipt of such a request by it. To be only noticed that in para No. 9 reproduced above of the notice, neither the names of persons had been suggested nor respondents 1 to 3 called upon to concur in the appointment of sole arbitrator. Thus, based on such a notice the present petition is not legally maintainable as was rightly contended on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground alone. 5. For foregoing discussion, the petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to file such a petition after serving fresh notice under sub-section (5) of section 11 on respondents 1 to 3. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (8) TMI 775 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Circumstances in which company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ition, it is stated that the managing director of the respondent-company orally agreed to discharge the amount, admittedly, the same has not been stated so in the notice, dated 5-9-2001. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that when the respondent-company had faced acute financial trouble in the year 1994-1996, there several winding up petitions were filed before this court and this court even ordered advertisement of the company petitions against the respondent. In such circumstances, as rightly contended on the side of the respondent, at that point of time, nothing prevented the petitioner to come forward with a claim before this court. Admittedly, no such attempt or effort had been taken by the petitioner. 8.1 In the light of what is stated above, I am satisfied that the present company petition is bereft of the required details, and I do not find any merit in complying with the request of the petitioner. Consequently, the company petition is dismissed. 8.2 No cost.
-
2002 (8) TMI 774 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Share capital - Reduction of ... ... ... ... ..... al of M/s. Om Metal and Minerals Limited, is henceforth Rs. 8,00,00,000 divided into 80,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each and the subscribed and paid up share capital of the company after reduction of subscribed share capital is Rs. 5,61,91,150 divided into 56,19,115 equity shares of Rs. 10 each fully paid up. At the date of the registration of this minute 56,19,115 equity shares have been issued and are deemed to be fully paid up and the remaining 23,80,885 equity shares are unissued. 13. A certified copy of this order be delivered to the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur within 21 days of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A notice of registration by the Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur of this order and that of said minutes be published in the Rajasthan Patrika, Jaipur edition, Hindustan Times, New Delhi edition and Rajasthan Gazette within 14 days of the registration aforesaid. 14. The company petition accordingly stands disposed of.
............
|
