|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 266 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... les under section 6-B of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction and to that extent they are liable to be quashed. 29.. In the light of our above discussion, we make the following orders and directions (i) We dismiss Writ Appeal No. 2765 of 1982 and uphold the order of Rama Jois, J., in Writ Petition No. 12324 of 1982 . (ii) We quash the notices impugned in the writ petitions challenged before us in so far as they relate to levy of additional tax under section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act on inter-State sales or declared goods and not in other respects, if any, without examining their validity in other respects. But, liberty reserved for their determination before the authorities constituted under the Act, in accordance with law. 30.. Writ Appeal and writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in all these cases. P.K.P. Abdul Hakeem and Co. v. State of Karnataka 1983 52 STC 205.
-
1985 (4) TMI 265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not liable to be excluded under rule 6(4)(f) and (ff).One other similar decision of this Court on the point is that rendered in State v. Yadvad and Co. After carefully examining all the facts involved in the Webbs case 1969 24 STC 84 and the two cases of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. 1970 26 STC 248 (SC) and D.C. Johar and Sons (P.) Ltd. 1971 27 STC 120 (SC) we overrule the decision rendered in Webbs case 1969 24 STC 84. 18.. In the light of the law laid down in several decisions referred to supra rendered by the Supreme Court, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and hold that the Division Bench decision of this Court in Webbs Sales and Service (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore 1969 24 STC 84 has been impliedly overruled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1970 26 STC 248 (SC) and D.C. Johar and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Ernakulam 1971 27 STC 120 (SC).
-
1985 (4) TMI 264 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Company – Membership of, Contributories in case of death of member, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts
-
1985 (4) TMI 255 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... etween the main part of the notification and the proviso, the proviso only will prevail. We cannot accept this argument. The normal function of a proviso is to carve out something which is covered by the main provision. In a matter like this, where the very purpose of the protection which was intended by the notification under section 4 (b) of the Act will be defeated by considering the proviso in the manner in which it is sought to be construed by the respondents, we cannot hold that it is the proviso which will prevail and not the substantive part of the notification. In the view which we have taken, we must set aside the order of the learned judge and hold that the relief undertaking is entitled to the protection of section 4 of the Act, and consequently, the proceedings in the three company petitions cannot go on till such time as the notifications under sections 3 and 4 of the Act are in force. The appeals are thus allowed with costs Rs. 500 one set in OSA No. 8 of 1985.
-
1985 (4) TMI 245 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Court - Jurisdiction of, Directors vacation of office by, Director - Disclosure of interest by
-
1985 (4) TMI 236 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Inherent powers of Court, Substitution of creditor or contributory for original petitioner
-
1985 (4) TMI 235 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... court had proceeded to pass an order. That the same ratio must apply to the present case and relief must now be granted on this ground. Now, as regards Mr. Thacker s contention is concerned, in view of the language used in section 8 (reproduced above) the contention must be negatived. As regards the case relied upon by Mr. Thacker is concerned, the facts in that case were that Podar Mills Ltd. had several units at several places. Under the Act, what was taken over was only one unit and all other units of the company situate at various places in the country were left untouched. It was in the light of this that an order had come to be passed in the said matter leaving out the unit taken over under the Act. This is not the position in the present petition for what has been taken over is the management of the entire undertaking. The case cited by Mr. Thacker can be of no assistance to him. In the result, the petition must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 219 - SUPREME COURT
Power to search premises, Section 37(2) should be interpreted to mean that broadly procedure relating to search as enacted in section 165 of Code shall be followed
-
1985 (4) TMI 218 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... is made by the Income-tax Department under sections 528 and 529 of the Companies Act. The proceedings for recovery will, however, be hit by the provisions of section 446(1) of the Companies Act, unless leave of the winding-up court is sought for and obtained prior to the commencement of the recovery proceedings. It is brought to our notice that subsequent to the decision of the learned single judge, the refund due to the company by way of excess tax paid for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 was adjusted towards the interest assessed under section 220(2) of the Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The recovery effected by way of adjustment of interest, without seeking to obtain prior leave of court under section 446(1) of the Companies Act, is invalid and cannot be sustained. The ITO is, therefore, directed to refund the interest recovered to the official liquidator of the company in liquidation. The appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund/rebate - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e on 1983 (14) E.L.T. - 1853 (CEGAT) - Aditya Mills . We observe that the exemption notification in this case was issued on 16-6-1976. It was effective from 1-7-1976. The procedure for implementation of the scheme of this notification was laid down by the Department some 4 months later. The mechanics of the scheme were such that it was not possible for an assessee to have obtained prior approval of the Asstt. Collector in the classification list itself. The assessee had to go through the alternative drill of submitting the base year declaration and getting prior approval thereon from the Asstt. Collector. The respondents did go through that drill. And, as already observed by us in the previous paragraph, they staked their claim within the prescribed time limit of Rule 11. The Department rsquo s plea regarding the assessee having not disputed the classification list has, therefore, no substance. 5. In the light of our above discussions, we reject the Department rsquo s appeal.
-
1985 (4) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... uestion whether the products made out of duty-paid base paper could be charged to duty under the said item. The latter aspect is not relevant for our present purpose since we are not dealing with levy of excise duty but of additional duty of Customs on an imported article which must be looked at in the condition in which it is imported. If the ratio of these decisions is applied to the present case, the goods must be held to fall under Item 17(2) CET. However since the very product, viz. ldquo E class insulating paper rdquo has been considered by the Tribunal in the Yash Udyog and Sunrise Electric Corporation cases, we would prefer to follow the decisions in these cases and hold that the correct classification is under Item 68 CET. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 18. In the present case, we are not called upon to pronounce on the classification of the goods under the Customs Tariff Schedule. For, the dispute is about levy of additional duty.
-
1985 (4) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... pany at Delhi, drew our attention to our Order No. C-548 to 555/84, dated 21-8-1984 on a batch of appeals filed by the present appellants and M/s Hico Products Ltd., Bombay, in support of the Appellants rsquo contention. Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, Deptl. Representative, while accepting that the said Order would apply to the present appeals as well, stated that he would like to go on record as having reiterated all his submissions in the earlier batch of appeals leading to the Order of 21-8-1984. 4. emsp In the Order of 21-8-1984, after considering the submissions of both sides at length, we held that fatty alcohols fell under heading No. 15.08/13 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and were further eligible to the duty exemption contained in Customs Notification No. 48, dated 1-3-1979. Following the ratio of this decision, we allow the present three appeals with consequential relief to the appellants which shall be granted within 3 months from the date of communication of this Order.
-
1985 (4) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... .J 711. 6. ensp For the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to express a finding on the contention of the parties about classification for the purpose of basic customs duty corresponding with classification for the purpose of CV duty, i.e. under the Central Excise Tariff. 7. ensp It was not disputed by the respondents that component parts of machinery need not necessarily be made of metal or wood. After hearing the parties and looking into the drawing in respect of the goods, it appears to us that the appropriate classification of the goods should have been as component parts of machinery, i.e. the same as for the purpose of basic customs duty. It should not have been under Tariff Item 22 of CET as man-made fabrics. As a consequence, in view of the agreed position above, the same should have been held not liable to CV duty. 8. ensp We, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Customs and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (4) TMI 190 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export Assistance Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... o the 1st of January 1979 although actual exporters under these contracts may have been effected at a subsequent date. 7. In the premises the decision of the 1st respondent to the effect that the said exports are not eligible for cash compensatory support under the said scheme is set aside. The 1st respondents are directed to examine each of the contracts mentioned in the petition to determine whether they were entered into under the said scheme and whether they were entered into prior to 1st of January 1979. In respect of such contracts as have been entered into prior to 1st of January 1979 under the said scheme the respondent No. 1 shall grant cash compensatory support. Such examination to be made and cash assistance to be granted within a period of 6 months from today. The 2nd respondents have merely acted on behalf of the 1st respondent. The petition is therefore dismissed as against the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent will pay to the petitioners costs of the petition.
-
1985 (4) TMI 187 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... of Mohd. Swallehin v. Lt. Governor, Delhi reported in A.I.R. 1977 Delhi 184 under which the Delhi High Court has held that the Government has no power to rescind a notification with retrospective effect. It is not the case of the respondents that they have cancelled the licence with retrospective effect. The respondents have contended that the licence was non est at the time of import because it was obtained by mis-representation or fraud. This contention cannot be accepted for the reasons set out above. 10. In the premises, the petitioner is entitled to clear the goods imported by the petitioner by s.s. lsquo Vishva Tirth rsquo under Bill of Entry Nos. 1752/37, 1752/38 and 1752/39 dated 11th February, 1976. The Respondents are directed to release the said goods to the petitioner upon payment of requisite customs duty, warehousing charges and such other charges as they may be entitled to recover in law from the petitioner. 11. The rule is made absolute accordingly with costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 184 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/dispensation of prior deposit application ... ... ... ... ..... order-in-original in triplicate. He states that copies of the Order-in-Original have already been filed with the memorandum of appeal and it will be a duplication to enclose them again with the stay application. So far as the filing of the additional copy of the order is concerned, we feel that the Registry need not insist on the production of additional copies with the stay application and the copies already filed with the memorandum of appeal would be sufficient to be looked into while deciding the stay application. The stay application may therefore, be listed for hearing as early as possible.
-
1985 (4) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... at earlier stages of the proceedings rsquo , has no applicability here as the question of classification of goods is not merely a question of law but is a mixed question of fact and law (See English Electric Company v. Superintendent Central Excise - AIR 1975 Madras 395). Moreover, Section 11 A enacts a mandatory obligation on the Revenue to issue a show cause notice which cannot be circumvent in the garb of raising an additional new ground. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Lathia Industrial Supplier Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1987 (29) E.L.T. 751 (S.C.) , has turn down the plea of the Department as to applicability of time limit to refunds, merely because no such plea was raised before the lower forum. In the light of this decision the departmental claim for classification of goods under altogether a different Tariff Entry can not be allowed to be raised for the first-time before the Appellate Tribunal in the garb of ldquo additional ground rdquo .
-
1985 (4) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appellate Tribunal’s Powers ... ... ... ... ..... elt that it was the duty of the West Regional Bench to give its verdict even if it holds a contrary view to the ratio of the case reported in 1983 E.L.T. 626 because the doctorine of President is not the rule of law and the decision of one Bench is not legally but morally binding on subsequent Benches. Earlier precedent can be ignored for cogent reasons see Camlin Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - 1982 E.L.T. at Bombay, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 E.L.T. 328 Delhi and Mukand Engineering v. Collector of Central Excise 1983 E.L.T. 816 (Tribunal) . Moreover the Appellate Tribunal is not the final authority and there are courts above it and therefore it is always open to the aggrieved party to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances against the incorrect decision and in that eventuality the conflict between the two Benches can more appropriately be settled rather than to refer a matter to a Bench which lack inherent jurisdiction over the appeal.
-
1985 (4) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Plants separately registered as two factories ... ... ... ... ..... on. Though the onus to show that the two gases were ldquo goods rdquo was on the respondent, the appellants seem to have acquiesced in the situation and not questioned the classification of the goods. Even before us, no material has been placed which may have enabled us to arrive at a proper conclusion on the classification issue. In the result, the appeals fail and are rejected. 12. emsp The above disposes of the appeal in so far as the duty liability on Rich Gas and Synthesis Gas is concerned. In the 2nd of the two appeals, the facts and circumstances are similar, the only difference being that the duty liability is in respect of coke oven gas and nitrogen gas produced in the steel plant and consumed in the fertilizer plant. The period of the demand is the same and the demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector, vide his Order dated 14-9-1976, which was confirmed by the Appellate Collector. The issues being similar, we reject the appeals in respect of this matter also.
-
1985 (4) TMI 168 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference Application - Condonation of delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... t on page 3 of the reference application (in para ..... has used improper language. He has pleaded that the applicant should have taken due care in using better and proper expressions. Lastly, he has pleaded that this Tribunal had come to a finding after due appreciation of the facts and the submissions made before it and no question of law is involved. The reference application needs be dismissed. 8A. emsp In reply, Shri K.B. Basu, the learned advocate has pleaded that as per learned JDR rsquo s arguments, the provisions of making a reference application becomes superfluous. He has again requested this court for making a reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. 9. emsp Having considered the submissions of both the sides, I hold that this Tribunal had considered all the facts and circumstances and the law. Accordingly, I hold that no question of law is involved and the finding of the Tribunal is the finding of the facts. In the result, the reference application is rejected.
........
|
