|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 354 Records
-
2003 (6) TMI 332 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... equitable to wind up such company. 3. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Company Judge. By the impugned order the learned Company Judge did not follow the Company (Court) Rules in order to determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company. After receipt of the opinion of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, notices were issued, but, further adjudication has not taken place. While disposing of miscellaneous application the leaned Company Judge also proceeded to dispose of the Company Petition by ordering winding up which is contrary to the provisions of the Companies Act and the Company (Court) Rules and the observations in Eastern Paper Mills Ltd. rsquo s case (supra). 4. In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Impugned order insofar as it has ordered winding up of the company is set aside and the learned Company Judge will proceed in accordance with law and determine whether it is just and equitable to wind up the company.
-
2003 (6) TMI 331 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... an getting merged with the transferee company. It was for the share holders of the transferor and transferee companies to consider this aspect. The share holders in their wisdom have considered and approved the scheme by an overwhelming majority. 10. Shri Uttamchandani stated that he does not contest the swap ratio in the scheme of amalgamation. No other point was canvassed. 11. The scheme of arrangement as approved by the shareholders of the transferor and transferee company by their respective resolutions is sanctioned. Company Petition No. 1085 of 2002 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to ( h). Company Petition No. 1086 of 2002 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (g). Both the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs. 2500 each to the Regional Director. The petitioner in Company Petition No. 1085 of 2002 shall also pay costs of Rs. 2500 to the Official Liquidator. 12. At the request of Mr. Uttamchandani operation of this order is stayed for a period of two weeks.
-
2003 (6) TMI 317 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... record cannot be something which would have to be established by long drawn process of reasoning on which there may conceivably be two opinions. rdquo It has been held that a decision on debatable point of law cannot be ldquo mistake apparent from the record. rdquo In the present matter, the appeal filed by the Appellants was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that as they have not challenged the assessment made by the proper officer on Bill of Entry, they cannot claim refund of duty relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Flock (India) Pvt. Limited. The applicants are of the view that Flock (India) Pvt. Limited rsquo s case which was delivered by the Supreme Court in excise matter cannot be made applicable to a refund claim filed under the provisions of Customs Act. It is nothing but a debatable point of law on which no application for rectification of mistake can be filed. We, therefore, find no merit in the applications which are rejected.
-
2003 (6) TMI 316 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty - Misdeclaration of description - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... s-declared. Once the nature of the goods has been mis-declared, it follows that the value declared also cannot be accepted. Therefore, the order cannot be faulted for re-fixing the assessable value in accordance with the provisions of Customs Valuation Rules. The appellants also have not shown any material that the revision of value made by the customs authorities is not correct. We find that the enhancement of value is only by 60-70 which is a reasonable difference between the value of original material and scrap. We do not find any reason to interfere with the valuation also. The enhanced value of goods comes to about Rs. 33 lakhs. The redemption fine imposed is only Rs. 6.5 lakhs and penalty is only Rs. 65,000/-. Keeping the nature of the offence involved and the differential value, the fine and penalty are quite low. 7. emsp In the light of what is stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is accordingly confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
2003 (6) TMI 315 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Shortages of goods - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... d not know the reasons for shortage and he agreed to accept the shortage of molasses under protest and debit the duty amount. This cannot be the sole basis of proving that there was shortage in the quantity of molasses. The Appellants have contended that the Central Excise officer had conducted the stock verification of the molasses on the date of their visit. There is no rebuttal of this submission by the Revenue even in the Appeal preferred before us. Even if the officer had not taken the physical verification at the time of their visit, it was expected by them to check the physical stock the moment they recovered the paper slip showing the shortage of molasses. The figure in paper slip has not been corroborated by any material or evidence. The respondents have also brought on record the verification of molasses stock done by the State Excise Authorities. Accordingly, the Revenue has not proved the shortage of molasses. We, therefore, reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2003 (6) TMI 314 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... that the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M.R.F., though rendered in regard to classification under old Tariff 16A, holds good with regard to the classification under Chapter 40 also. It has also been pointed out that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unipatch Rubber has not attained finality as an appeal against that order has been admitted by the Apex Court Civil Appeal No. 1332/2001 - 2001 (131) E.L.T. A79 (S.C.) . 4. emsp A perusal of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Unipatch Rubber makes it clear that that decision was rendered after due consideration of the rival contentions on merits of classification made by both sides. That an appeal has been admitted against that decision does not affect its binding nature. Accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed after setting aside the impugned order of classification. ldquo Precured Rubber Tyre Patches rdquo shall be classified under 4008.21 and assessment of duty made accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 313 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - SSI unit - Brand name - Evidence - Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... purchase, as observed above, and this fact was also not denied by appellants No. 1. 5. emsp It also remains undisputed that appellants No. 2 is a SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit. Therefore, no duty was required to be paid by them at the time of clearances of the goods being within the exemption limit. The seized goods had not been claimed by appellants No. 2 and as such patently the impugned order ordering the release of the seized goods to them on payment of redemption fine, cannot be legally sustained. Appellant No. 1 being owner of the goods, is entitled to the release of the same. 6. emsp No penalty on any of the appellants could be imposed for having not contravened the provisions of Excise law/rules in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above. 7. emsp Therefore, the impugned order passed against both the appellants is set aside. The appeals of both the appellants are accepted with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 312 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Benefit under Notification No. 5/94-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... ts and the classification lists were duly approved by the competent authority, now the impugned order denying the benefit of notification on the ground that they had not filed any revised classification list claiming the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E., is sustainable. 4. emsp Ld. D.R. reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 5. emsp We find that the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. was denied to the appellants on the ground that they had not filed any revised classification list. Appellants filed the classification list claiming the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and after crossing the limit of clearance under Notification 1/93-C.E., they claimed the benefit of Notification No. 5/94-C.E. The classification lists were duly approved by the competent authority. In these circumstances, denial of benefit of notification on the ground that the revised classification list had not been filed, is not sustainable, hence set aside and the appeals are allowed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Duty demanded on Polyester Staple Fibre ... ... ... ... ..... rics cleared for home consumption and therefore, the defence contentions are not sustainable. rdquo In the Notification 33/90, there is reference to execution of bond in terms of paragraph (vi) of the notification, but, the show cause notice does not state that the claim is made on the bond but under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The said rule provides for removal of manufacturing goods from the factory of production. The production here was PSF, which was made by the Reliance Industries Ltd., and not by the appellant. But, the duty was demanded on the appellant. The demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, demanding duty on PSF on the appellant who is not a manufacturer of raw material is wrong in law. We make it clear that the department is at liberty to proceed to enforce the bond if any furnished by the appellant in accordance with law if so advised. 6. emsp Hence the impugned order is set aside and the appeals stands allowed with consequential relief.
-
2003 (6) TMI 304 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Clandestine removal - Raw material supplier ... ... ... ... ..... t was found to be false. At the time of incident, the present appellant was also allegedly present in the factory premises. It is, under these circumstances, that he had been also roped in the case booked against the company for clandestine removal of the goods. Otherwise, there could not be any cause for implicating him in the case when he has got no concern in any capacity with the company. He is only a raw material supplier of that company. 5. emsp There is no evidence on record to prove that the appellant ever helped the above said company in the removal of the goods in a clandestine manner, having no concern with that company. Therefore, no case under Rule 209A is legally made out against him. 6. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside to the extent to which it has been challenged in the present appeal against the present appellant. The appeal of the appellant is allowed with consequential relief if any, permissible under the law.
-
2003 (6) TMI 303 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Classification of goods - Misdeclaration - Adjudication - Findings ... ... ... ... ..... he said issue was not the subject matter of the adjudication proceedings. In fact, there is no detailed discussion in this regard in the impugned order and there is one line in paragraph 17 of the impugned order as under - ldquo 17. emsp The request of the importer for clearance of the goods under DFRC cannot be acceded to...... rdquo I order for expunging the said line from the impugned order. However, I make it clear that the Customs Authorities are at liberty to look into the aspect of clearance of the goods under D.F.R.C. afresh, if they so desire. Needless to say that before taking any decision on the said issue, the appellants should be given an opportunity to present their case. The appeal is thus allowed in above terms. rdquo In the instant case also identical situation is there. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Commissioner on the above point with liberty to them to look into the said aspect afresh, if they so want. Appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.
-
2003 (6) TMI 302 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Excisability - Waste ... ... ... ... ..... by the Revenue. 3. emsp I have heard the learned SDR and none appears for the respondents. 4. emsp I note that the Revenue rsquo s appeal against the decision in the case of Victoria Mills Limited was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its Order No. C-II/2360/WZB/2001, dated 11-9-2001 relying upon the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of Bhor Industries v. CCE - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 611. The Bhor Industries decision is in the context of disposal of waste of polyethylene and this has been followed in the case relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present impugned orders. Therefore the ratio of this judgment is directly applicable, although learned SDR seeks to place reliance upon the Tribunal rsquo s order in the case of DCW Ltd. v. CCE, Madurai - 1996 (81) E.L.T. 381 which is on dutiability of spent sulphuric acid. Following the ratio of the Victoria Mills decision, which is applicable on all fours to the present case, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.
-
2003 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Oils - Hydrocarbon oil ... ... ... ... ..... are defined in the new tariff. As per the definition these should take in any hydrocarbon oils other than mineral colza oil and turpentine substitute which satisfy the physical properties mentioned therein. Department was not placed before us any data showing that any oil other than hydrocarbon oil which satisfy the physical properties is known in the common parlance as kerosene oil or aviation turbine fuel. Therefore, the definition of kerosene and aviation turbine fuel in Chapter 27 takes within its ambit any hydrocarbon oil other than mineral colza oil and turpentine substitute which has a smoke point of 18 millimetres or more and has a final boiling point not exceeding 300 deg C. rdquo 6. emsp As LARO satisfies the specifications enumerated in the Heading 2710.29, following the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Reliance Industries case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeal.
-
2003 (6) TMI 300 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Recovery of pre-deposit suo motu reversed ... ... ... ... ..... pugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be, in any manner, said to be illegal. Without issuing the show cause notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents, no recovery of the amount could be ordered to be made from them. The respondents were within their right to utilise that amount after taking the credit. They were not required to file refund application in view of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Foam Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, reported in 2001 (44) R.L.T. 613, wherein it has been observed that in case of pre-deposit, the assessee can take the credit of the amount pre-deposited by him after informing the department and that he is not required to move formal application of refund of that amount. 6. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) being perfectly valid and in accordance with law, does not require any interference and the same is upheld. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 299 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Job charges - Profit element ... ... ... ... ..... unavoidable, he says, it could have carried out the work without incurring any profit at all. He also points out that there is no allegation that the appellant received any other amount from H.R. Johnson (India) Ltd. 3. emsp The same point was the subject-matter of four decisions of the Tribunal, each of them has independently come to the conclusion that the job charges paid to a manufacturer would include an element of profit. 4. emsp The emphasise by the Commissioner on the contents of the circular of the Board does not really help the department rsquo s case. The Board rsquo s circular related to valuation of goods captively consumed, whereas we are concerned with the goods on job work. Apart from the fact that the Board circular required inclusion of an element of profit in the assessable value, the principle is an exception and by applying that principle, we have concluded that job charges would have included the profit. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (6) TMI 298 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Machine ... ... ... ... ..... ith the machine imported by the respondent. It is pointed out that the weight of the machine imported by the respondent was 9,500 kgs and in the case of previous clearance at ICD, Patparganj, the weight was only 7,000 kgs. 3. emsp We are not inclined to accept the contention that difference in weight alone would indicate that the machine imported by the respondent herein is of higher value. There are no material produced before us to show that the enhancement in the weight is due to the reason of more accessories, parts or components of the machine imported by the respondent. According to us, the approach made by the Commissioner is fully justified. He has observed that in comparison to 1991 model cleared from Patparganj the impugned machine is a model of 1988 or earlier could be of lesser value. It was under these circumstances, he accepted the declared value. We find no reason to differ with the Commissioner. In the light of the above, the appeal fails and stands dismissed.
-
2003 (6) TMI 297 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Manufacture - Camphor solid mass grinded to powder - Demand - Limitation - Bona fide belief ... ... ... ... ..... and wheat flour in sigma mixers and then pouring of filtered water mixed asafoetida resulting in lump or powder does not bring a chemical change in asafoetida and no new goods comes into existence hence does not amount to a process of manufacture. 6.15 emsp In the case of Reckitt and Coleman of India Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, 1996 (82) E.L.T. 407 (T) the Tribunal held that converting enzyme blend powder into tablets does not amount to a process of manufacture. 6.16 emsp In the case of Kingwin Uinversal (India) v. CCE, Indore, 2000 (117) E.L.T. 305 (T) the Tribunal held that process of dilution/addition of filter to herbicides/fungicides, sulphonated castor oil and inorganic and organic chemicals does not amount to process of manufacture. 7. emsp These rulings have been relied by the Commissioner to drop the proceedings and hence in view of the citations relied, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the appeals filed by Revenue are rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (6) TMI 296 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
EXIM - New restrictions - Amendment of policy ... ... ... ... ..... When the present appeal was called, none appeared for the appellant. Heard the DR and considered the grounds in appeal and find - (a) emsp The finding of Commissioner (Appeals) that L/C was opened on 8-3-1996 and case was cleared payment of duty on 4-5-1996 which would be more than 45 days is ignoring the provisions of Para 5 of the policy. It is on record that the imports were made by Airway Bill of flight dated 3-4-1996. It is the date of shipment or import which is to be reckoned for the purposes of determining the applicability of the new restrictions and not the date of payment of duty and clearance of goods as held by the Commissioner. Since in this case shipment was made on 3-4-1996 and Bill of Entry for import was filed on 3-4-1996 and the amendment to Policy is dated 25-3-1996 the imports are covered by Para 5 of the Exim Policy 1992-1997, the order of the Commissioner cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefit.
-
2003 (6) TMI 295 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Interest - Warehoused goods ... ... ... ... ..... it is quite evident that the liability to pay interest by the assessee hinges on his liability to pay the customs duty on the goods warehoused by him. But in the instant case, as observed above, no duty liability has been so far determined by the competent authority on the warehoused goods. Therefore, in my view, the matter deserved to be sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision, keeping in view the above referred Board rsquo s Circular, Notification and the ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases or any other case which may be cited by the learned counsel at the time of adjudication. 7. emsp Consequently, the impugned order in all the appeals, is ordered to be set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. The appeals stand allowed by way of remand. It is needless to say that the adjudicating authority will afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
-
2003 (6) TMI 294 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Electromagnet assembly ... ... ... ... ..... ccording to the said Dictionary ldquo Power Factor rdquo is the ratio of the average (or active) power to the apparent power (root-means-square voltage runs current) of an alternating current circuit. As the impugned goods is not electromagnet simplicitor and is ldquo part rdquo of electric meter, we are of the view that it is correctly classifiable under Heading 90.33 which covers parts and accessories (not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter) for machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90 since electric supply meters are classifiable under Heading 90.28 of the Tariff Note 2(a) to both Chapter 85 and Chapter 90 is not attracted as the impugned goods is not a goods included in any of the headings of these two Chapters. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. rdquo 4. emsp The issue of classification thus remains covered in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.
............
|
