|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 349 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up – Application of insolvency rules ... ... ... ... ..... n the sale of the properties by the official liquidator. Therefore, the appropriate order to be made is to direct the official liquidator to cause the sale of these properties by public auction within a period of four weeks from this day. In order to facilitate the determination of amounts due to the workmen, the official liquidator is directed to take out advertisements in one issue of Deccan Herald and in one issue of Kannada Prabha in all these applications calling upon the workmen to furnish their claims by way of arrears of wages, and the other dues more particularly mentioned in section 529(3) of the Act. Such publication shall be caused within two weeks from this day and the workmen shall be called upon to file their claims within two weeks from the date of the application. If no claim is forthcoming, the property shall be sold by KSFC for the realisation of their dues subject to further orders of this court. Call these applications for further orders after four weeks.
-
1989 (2) TMI 327 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Substitution of creditor or contributory for original petitioner ... ... ... ... ..... ntroverted. Despite reminders, there was no reply thereto, much less any denial thereof. In the circumstances, there is serious doubt as to the validity and authenticity of the applicants claim set up for the first time now while claiming substitution. Speaking prima facie, the applicants are not the creditors of the company. In any event, there is, between the parties, a serious and bona fide dispute in this behalf. This is also not in the least a case where one can even remotely infer that the company is unable to pay or is neglecting to pay. Indeed, as already indicated, the company has paid in full all its creditors. In sum, therefore, though there is power to grant substitution, this is pre-eminently a case where this court should, in its judicial discretion, decline the said relief. Request for substitution is thus rejected. The main petition, being Company Petition No. 571 of 1986, be now placed before the court taking up company matters for appropriate orders thereon.
-
1989 (2) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Transfer to Shares – Power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal, Powers of Court to rectify register of members
-
1989 (2) TMI 318 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Court – Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... 226 of the Constitution and it was, therefore, decided that the entire cause of action having arisen within the State of Rajasthan, i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, this High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. The case is remanded to the trial court which will re-admit the writ petition on its file and proceed to hear and decide the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the course of this judgment. In case any application for interim relief is made, the trial court may endeavour to hear and decide the same in accordance with law with due expedition. The second respondent company will pay the costs of this appeal to the appellants which are determined at Rs. 1,700. The costs shall be paid before the matter reaches hearing before the trial court pursuant to this order. Sengupta, J. mdash I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 317 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... n 434 read with section 439 of the Act is that the debt is bona fide disputed, and the defence is in good faith and is of substance and is likely to succeed in point of law and prima facie proof of the fact on which the defence demand is adduced. The respondent-Corporation has failed to do so. Under the circumstances of the present case, I direct the respondent-company to make the payment of price of 1,60,000 HPDE bags at the rate of Rs. 5.75 per bag from the date of delivery which was made between September 11, 1986, to September 16, 1986, along with interest, at the rate of 9 with effect from January 1, 1987, to May 27, 1988, minus the amount of Rs. 2,44,160 64, paid in court within one month from today, failing which the company petition will be advertised as contemplated by rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, by an insertion in the daily, Tribune , Punjabi Tribune and the Union Territory Government Gazette. The case to come up for further orders on May 12, 1989.
-
1989 (2) TMI 300 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural Justice - Opportunity of hearing ... ... ... ... ..... the applicant that no fair and effective opportunity of hearing has been given because the notice of hearing itself was received after the expiry of the time of hearing fixed. This fact has been substantially corroborated by the evidence brought on record by the applicant as mentioned above. On this plea alone we feel it is a fit case for dispensing with unconditionally the dues demanded under the impugned order and the case is fit for remand for de novo decision by the adjudicating authority in accordance with the principles of natural justice. We are also not impressed by the plea of the learned JDR that the adjudicating authority was not to take into account the pleas submitted by the applicant in his letter dated 29-2-1988 addressed to the adjudicating authority. 4. In the light of the above discussion, we, therefore, dispense with the dues demanded in the impugned order unconditionally in exercise of our powers under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1989 (2) TMI 299 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is being the position, from the point of view of the specifications, it cannot be denied that the inputs under consideration here i.e. ammonia, furnace oil and LSHS have been used in the manufacture of fertilisers. The process of sieving for bringing out the larger prills before they are considered fit for urea TG could not take the product away from the category of urea FG. Accordingly, we are of the view that the inputs have been used in the manufacture of fertilisers and therefore, they are rightly entitled to the benefit of the two Notifications 145/71 and 147/74. 4. In view of our aforesaid findings, on the entitlement of the benefit of notifications in favour of the respondents, we do not consider it necessary to go into the question of the time limit because the demands in any case would not be sustainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals of the appellant-Collector and confirm the impugned orders. Consequential relief to the respondents should be granted forthwith.
-
1989 (2) TMI 298 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remission of duty for pilfered goods ... ... ... ... ..... propriate order. It has also been observed repeatedly that minor procedural infractions of a technical nature should not come in the way of granting relief if a substantive compliance with law could be shown, as the amplitude of the Section 13 is very wide and requires the Asstt. Collector to satisfy himself and does not bind him to any particular procedure. 12. In view of the above position, the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Asstt. Collector for de novo consideration in accordance with law. It will be open to the Assistant Collector to satisfy himself with reference to the relevant documents as to whether the shortage was actually noticed during the Customs clearance and before the Pass-out Charge Order was given. He would further be required to take all the facts and circumstances of the case into account and give another opportunity to the appellants of being heard in the matter if they so desire before the order is passed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 297 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cally provided for ldquo making a gift rdquo of items imported as baggage without import licence but on payment of duty. In support of this contention, reasonable evidence had also been adduced by the Appellant vide letter dated 11-7-1986 submitted to the Asst. Collector during the hearing of the case. On 16-11-1985 playing of the instant VCR at the residence of appellant rsquo s friend Shri Des Raj who reportedly bore the cost of borrowing the cassette (Babu Ki Awaz) did not constitute violation of any provisions of Customs Act, 1962 or of the Imported Control Order, 1955. 5. I have gone through the facts on records, appeal memo and plea of the appellant. 6. I find that the fact of gifting has been corroborated by the investigation caused through Delhi Customs. In view of these reports confiscation was not maintainable. There is force in the contentions made by the learned Consultant. 7. The order-in-original is therefore set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1989 (2) TMI 295 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... scated or allowed redemption for home consumption or for export subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the adjudicating authority. In this case, the goods have been imported under invalid licences, of which they were aware at the time of filing the Bs/E itself. Once, the goods are held liable for confiscation, if they are allowed to be redeemed, they can be subjected to such conditions as may be prescribed. One such condition may be to re-export the goods with suitable fine. The citation made by the learned Advocate is not on all fours applicable to the present case, where the goods imported are admittedly not covered by valid licences and they were aware of this at the time of filing the Bs/E. We, however, would deem it just and proper to allow the appellants to redeem the goods with a condition of re-export and on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) in respect of each of the four consignments. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1989 (2) TMI 294 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Mineral oils - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... d not be identical with kerosene but need be only similar to it and the similarity is, as we have noted, in conforming to the definition of Kerosene. 45. In the light of the foregoing discussion, our conclusions are - (a) the subject goods, namely, Heavy Normal Paraffins fell for classification during the material period under Item 7, CET (b) the subject goods are the result of a process of manufacture applied to lsquo Kerosene rsquo and are, therefore, excisable under sub-item (ii) of Item No. 7, CET (c) however, the question of applicability of Central Excise Notification No. 276/67-CE, dated 21-12-1967, as it stood at the material time, needs be examined by the Asst. Collector after due opportunity being given to the respondents. 46. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter remanded to the Asst. Collector who shall dispose of the claim of the respondents with reference to Notification No. 276/67-CE, dated 21-12-1967 after giving due opportunity to the respondents.
-
1989 (2) TMI 291 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold Dealers’ Licence ... ... ... ... ..... d of five years with one single employer and has placed reliance on the decision of CEGAT (South Regional Bench) in Shri Uttamchand Jain - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 443. However, reading of proviso (f) to Clause (f) to Rule 2, shows that, it neither contemplates ldquo continuous employment rdquo or ldquo employment with a single dealer rdquo . What is contemplated is the experience for a period of not less than five years. It is a cardinal principle of law that the law as framed has to be read and no supplanting is permissible and in such circumstances, proposition laid down in S. Uttamchand Jain remains a doubtful proposition. Here, when the Collector (Appeals) has held that the respondent is eligible to get licence, irrespective of whether proviso (f) to Clause (f) to Rule (2) is applicable or not its which an agreement, we do not express any positive opinion on the interpretation of proviso (f) to Rule 2(f) made by the South Regional Bench. 14. In the result, we reject this appeal.
-
1989 (2) TMI 290 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Forfeiture of bond not appealable ... ... ... ... ..... of the impugned order appropriating Rs. 50,000/- is not adjudicatory in character coming within the mischief of Section 35B of the Act. I, therefore, hold that this part of the impugned order is not appealable. At this stage Shri Alimchandani, the learned Consultant, submitted that on broad considerations of justice and equity the Tribunal, while in seisin of this appeal, could go into the question. I am afraid I cannot accede to this plea of the learned Consultant, since a statutory Tribunal being a creature of the statute cannot traverse beyond the confines of law and arrogate to itself jurisdiction which it does not have under the Act or the Rules. I, therefore, hold that the appeal in respect of appropriation of Rs. 50,000/- under the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same is rejected. 5. So far as the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- is concerned Shri Alimchandani, the learned Consultant, does not press the issue, and the same is, therefore, confirmed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 289 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... would attract classification under sub-heading No. 3003.20 provided these are un-mixed products suitable for such use as medicaments and also provided that such medicaments are other than Patent or Proprietary medicaments. Shri Sunder Rajan, the learned representative from the department submits that the Trade Notice does not bind the Tribunal, but there is no answer to the point that there is a clear understanding in the Trade Notice given to the trade as regards the correct classification of the goods. What is more, no fault is found with the reasons given in the Trade Notice for holding that liquid paraffin IP would attract classification as medicament under Heading 3003.20. It is not the department rsquo s case that the goods imported are mixed products or that they are Patent or Proprietary medicines. 18. In the circumstances, we hold that the correct classification under the Central Excise Tariff would be under Heading No. 3003.20. Appeal partly allowed in these terms.
-
1989 (2) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ince there is no bifurcation of the value of the processors, printers and other accessories, we order that the value of the two printers which are in addition to 17 sets may be fixed at US 1,200 fob each. The above fine in lieu of confiscation is fixed after taking into consideration all the aspects including these two extra colour printers. The fine in lieu of confiscation is to be paid in addition to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods, the value of which has already been fixed above. 23. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paras, we hold that inasmuch as the appellants had under-valued the imported goods and had also mis-declared the value and quantity of the goods, we reduce the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 4 lakhs (Rupees four lakhs only). The Revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. Except for this modification as ordered above, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 287 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... he counter move from the customs. All these circumstantial factors cannot be brushed aside. In view of this position, we are unable to accept the plea of Shri Deshpande that there is no mala fides in import and they are not liable for penalty. However, we are inclined to consider their request for re-export, since it is neither a banned item nor a sensitive consumer item. As regards the quantum of penalty we feel that it is excessive and is required to be scaled down. We, therefore, direct that all the three consignments be allowed to be re-exported on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only), if the appellants choose to exercise their option within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order, otherwise the order of absolute confiscation will survive. We also reduce the penalty from Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 10. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1989 (2) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... thorities were right in applying the rates prevailing on the date of removal, and thereby agreed with the conclusion of this Court in Alembic Chemical Works case (supra) - See paragraph 17 of Sirpur Paper Mills case (ibid). 10. In the result I, as stated above, agree with the main conclusion recorded by my learned Brother that excisable goods do not become non-excisable merely by reason of exemption given under a Notification and the reason for agreeing is that besides the Delhi High Court, other High Courts have also taken a similar view and these decisions were referred to by Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory rsquo s case, supra. 11. Order per P.C. Jain, Member (T) . - I agree with the views expressed by my learned brother Judicial Member Shri G.P. Agarwal and the conclusions arrived at by learned brothers Shri D.C. Mandal, Technical Member and Shri G.P. Agarwal, Judicial Member. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import licence - Revalidation endorsement ... ... ... ... ..... of penalty on a person where no express penalty is provided elsewhere in the Act for contravention of any provision of the Act or abetment of such contravention or failure to comply with any provision of the Act which it was his duty to comply with. We do not think that, on the facts and in circumstances of the present case, Section 117 was attracted. 14. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. 15. Per G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) . - I have had the advantage of reading the erudite judgment proposed by the learned Senior Vice-President. Since the revalidation endorsement which is the root cause of the dispute in hand, is capable of being construed both ways as observed by the learned Senior Vice-President (para 9), I agree with the conclusion recorded by him and allow the appeal only on the short ground that since the two views are possible, the benefit of the favourable view should go to the appellants.
-
1989 (2) TMI 277 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... just like an ordinary pack of cigarettes. The article is made up to look like a much enlarged cigarette pack. At the top there are holes on the sides through which a string passes. It was explained to us that the string is used to hang the dummy in a shop as an aid for publicity and advertisement. The top and bottom were not pasted. Our examination of the sample clearly show that this cannot be used as carton or container for cigarettes. It is, quite clearly, publicity material. 6. In the circumstances, it is quite clear that the goods in question cannot be considered as discharging the functions of cartons and containers. As submitted by Shri Sundar Rajan end-use may not be relevant. But the very construction of the article before us shows that it is not designed to be used as packing. It is also quite clear that it is known in the trade as publicity material. Therefore, we hold that the Collector was quite correct in his conclusion. In this view we dismiss both the appeals.
-
1989 (2) TMI 276 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Proposed question of law ... ... ... ... ..... e authority, it is certainly open to him either to pass an order modifying or annulling or remanding the same but unfortunately when the issue itself was not pending before him, the lower appellate authority cannot pass any order of remand in regard to the same. Therefore, the impugned order remanding the issue in regard to the charge under Section 27(1) for reconsideration by the original authority is not legally sustainable. In this view of the matter, I set aside this finding of the lower appellate authority under the impugned order. rdquo 5. In my opinion, the decision of the Tribunal the relevant facts of which are extracted above does not give rise to any question of law and the scope of Section 80A (3) of the Act cannot be construed in such a way as to entrench upon the powers conferred on the Collector of Central Excise under Section 82(2) of the Act as contended by the learned Departmental Representative. In this view of the matter I reject the reference application.
........
|
