|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 652 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 1222
Issues:
Winding up petition under sections 433(e) and (f), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to default in payment of Inter Corporate Deposit.
Analysis:
1. Background and Allegations:
The winding up petition was filed against J.D. Polymers Ltd. for defaulting on an Inter Corporate Deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs. The petitioner alleged that the respondent-company failed to make timely payments as per the agreed terms, leading to the petition being presented on 3-2-1999.
2. Counter Affidavit and Payment Made:
In response, the managing director of J.D. Polymers Ltd. filed a counter affidavit stating that the company was not bound by a specific time limit for repayment. The respondent-company claimed to have been regularly paying interest and expressed readiness to repay the principal amount with interest. During the proceedings, the respondent made a partial payment of Rs. 3,97,059, but a balance of Rs. 37,225 remained due as interest accrued till 24-7-2000.
3. Court's Findings and Decision:
The court noted that the liability and interest rate were admitted by the respondent-company in the counter affidavit. Despite assurances of payment, the company failed to clear the outstanding balance of interest and deducted an amount towards TDS without submitting the necessary certificate. As a result, the court found the respondent-company negligent in fulfilling its payment obligations and ordered its winding up under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Appointment of Liquidator:
Following the decision to wind up the company, the official liquidator was appointed to take possession of the company's assets in accordance with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. This step was taken to ensure the proper liquidation of the company's assets and settlement of outstanding liabilities.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the legal consequences of defaulting on financial obligations, emphasizing the court's authority to order the winding up of a company under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 when payment defaults persist despite admitted liabilities and obligations.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1221
Issues:
Approval of scheme of amalgamation involving violation of sections 77 and 42 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis:
1. The petitions sought approval for the scheme of amalgamation of two companies, which had already received consent from shareholders and secured creditors. Meetings of shareholders and creditors were dispensed with based on previous orders.
2. The petitions were advertised in newspapers, and no opposition to the scheme was raised. Central Government did not object to the proposed scheme of amalgamation.
3. The Official Liquidator confirmed that the affairs of the transferor-company were not conducted in a prejudicial manner. However, an objection was raised regarding the violation of sections 77 and 42 of the Companies Act.
4. The Official Liquidator argued that the proposed merger would breach sections 77 and 42, as the transferor-company would hold shares in the transferee-company, which is not allowed under the Act.
5. Counsel for the companies contended that the objection was misconceived, citing provisions of sections 391 to 394 as a complete code for amalgamation. They referenced a Delhi High Court decision to support their argument.
6. After considering arguments from both sides, the Court found merit in the companies' submissions. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court decision supported the view that sections 391 to 394 were not controlled by sections 42 and 77.
7. The Court also acknowledged that the practical effect of the proposed amalgamation could have been achieved through a different share issuance structure. Hence, it saw no reason to accept the Official Liquidator's objection.
8. Ultimately, the Court approved the scheme of amalgamation, stating that it would be in the interest of the companies and their members. The prayers in the petitions were granted, and the petitions were allowed and disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1219
Issues:
Challenge to detention on grounds of misuse of power, vagueness of grounds, non-application of mind, non-supply of legible copies of documents, delay in disposal of representation.
Analysis:
The petitioner was detained under COFEPOSA, and despite the impending expiration of the detention period, sought a verdict on the validity of the detention. The detention was related to a case involving the apprehension of an individual for alleged smuggling of Chinese silk fabrics. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case, released on bail, and later detained to prevent dealing in smuggled goods. The petitioner challenged the detention on various grounds, including misuse of power, vagueness of grounds, and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. He also alleged delays in the disposal of his representation and non-supply of legible copies of documents.
The petitioner's counsel focused on two main grounds: non-supply of legible copies of documents and alleged delay in the disposal of the representation. The respondents denied these allegations and justified the detention order, stating that legible copies of documents were supplied, and there was no undue delay in disposing of the representation. The court noted that non-supply of relied-upon documents can invalidate a detention as it deprives the detenu of the opportunity to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Regarding the non-supply of legible documents, the court found that the copies submitted to the court were readable and could be understood easily. The petitioner's claim lacked substance and did not demonstrate how it prejudiced him in making a representation. The court rejected this ground. Similarly, on the issue of delay in disposing of the representation, the court found that the petitioner failed to specify any unreasonable delay or resulting prejudice. The representation was disposed of in 21 days, which was deemed reasonable, and not sufficient to vitiate the detention order.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, as the grounds raised by the petitioner failed to establish any misuse of power, vagueness, or non-application of mind in the detention process. The court found that the detention was valid, and the challenges raised were not substantiated, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1217
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of retention of documents, foreign currencies, and passport seized from the petitioner.
2. Compliance with the statutory time limits for adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).
3. Validity of the show-cause notices issued beyond the prescribed period.
4. Petitioner's rights concerning the return of seized items.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Retention of Documents, Foreign Currencies, and Passport:
The petitioner, an exporter of readymade garments and an indenting agent, challenged the seizure of documents, foreign currencies, and his passport by enforcement officers on 14-3-1995. The petitioner argued that the retention and attempt to confiscate these items were illegal and against the law. He claimed that the seized foreign currencies were the balance amount released to him before his visit to foreign countries and were not related to any foreign exchange violations. He also alleged that the enforcement officers obtained false statements from him under duress.
2. Compliance with Statutory Time Limits for Adjudication Proceedings:
The petitioner contended that the authorities did not commence adjudication proceedings within the six-month period prescribed under Section 41 of FERA. The show-cause notices were issued on 12-10-1995 and 16-10-1995, beyond the six-month period from the date of seizure. The petitioner emphasized that no extension of the six-month period was obtained by the respondents, making the retention of documents beyond this period illegal.
3. Validity of Show-cause Notices Issued Beyond the Prescribed Period:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the show-cause notices issued beyond the six-month period were invalid. The respondents, in their defense, argued that the delay was due to the non-availability of a key individual, Govindarajan, who appeared only on 13-7-1995. However, the court found that the respondents did not obtain an extension for the additional six months as required by law and did not inform the petitioner about any such extension.
4. Petitioner's Rights Concerning the Return of Seized Items:
The court referred to several precedents, including the cases of S.O. Arjunan Chettiar v. Enforcement Officer and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, which emphasized strict compliance with statutory provisions regarding the retention of seized documents. The court noted that the respondents failed to commence proceedings within the prescribed period and did not obtain an extension. Consequently, the retention of the seized documents, foreign currencies, and passport beyond the six-month period was deemed illegal.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the retention of the seized items beyond the statutory period was illegal and allowed the writ petition. The respondents were directed to return the seized documents, foreign currencies, and passport to the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed as prayed for, with no costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1215
Issues:
Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal due to the amount claimed in the suit being less than Rs. 10 lakhs before the enforcement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Analysis:
The judgment-debtors challenged exhibit No. P-5 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the execution application for a decree passed by a sub-court when the original claim was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioners contended that the total amount due, including interest, exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs was due to a delay in executing the decree. The petitioners relied on a previous decision by the same judge in UCO Bank v. Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, to support their argument.
The judge acknowledged the previous decision but noted that in a similar case, it was held that the amount at the time of the suit's institution determined jurisdiction under section 31. Despite the original claim being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the decree amount, including interest, exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs due to accrued interest. The judge highlighted the difference in this case where the Tribunal entertained the execution application despite the amount being less than Rs. 10 lakhs at the suit's inception, creating a potential jurisdictional issue.
The judge was made aware of a Supreme Court decision in Punjab National Bank v. Chajju Ram, which clarified that the amount claimed in an execution application falls within the scope of "cause of action" in section 31. The Supreme Court's interpretation was that if the decree amount exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, it constituted the cause of action for filing an execution application before the Tribunal. Consequently, the judge concluded that exhibit No. P-5 was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The judge emphasized that interference through articles 226 or 227 was not warranted when a specialized Tribunal had jurisdiction, dismissing the original petition based on the Supreme Court's decision.
In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction based on the amount claimed in the suit being less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The judge reconciled conflicting decisions by considering the decree amount, including interest, and ultimately upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's interpretation of the "cause of action" in section 31. The dismissal of the original petition was based on the principle of non-interference with specialized Tribunals when a separate remedy was available.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1213
Issues:
1. Company petition filed for winding up under just and equitable clause.
2. Disputes between two groups holding majority shares.
3. Company petition filed for oppression and mismanagement.
4. Scheme of arrangement proposed and pending approval.
5. Defending a recovery suit and facing criminal cases.
6. Argument based on alternative remedy under section 443(2).
Analysis:
1. The company petition was filed seeking to wind up Banaras Beads Ltd. under the just and equitable clause of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements, failure to submit annual returns, and oppression of minority shareholders' interests. The court noted the ongoing disputes between two groups holding the majority of shares and the arbitration award subject to approval by the High Court. Additionally, a separate company petition was filed for oppression and mismanagement, with modalities for share valuation being agreed upon by the parties.
2. A scheme of arrangement proposed in line with the arbitrator's award was pending approval, with meetings of shareholders and creditors directed by the court. The company was also involved in defending a recovery suit and facing criminal cases for non-compliance with the Companies Act. The respondent argued against the maintainability of the winding-up petition under section 433(f) citing an alternative remedy provision under section 443(2) and the ongoing proceedings before the Company Law Board (CLB) addressing oppression and mismanagement.
3. The court observed that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available through the proceedings before the CLB for complaints of oppression and mismanagement. As the petitioner was actively pursuing this remedy, the court dismissed the winding-up petition under section 433(f) on the grounds that the interests of the petitioner, who also held shares in the respondent company, would be protected by the CLB under sections 397 and 398. The court found the apprehension of not being heard to be unfounded in the circumstances presented.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1212
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
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
Issues:
Bail application under sections 8(1), 19(1)(b) of FERA and sections (3) and (4) of FEMA.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Initiation of Investigations:
The petitioner filed a bail application under relevant sections of FERA and FEMA. The Enforcement Directorate initiated investigations after noticing abnormal foreign exchange outflow from the stock market. The petitioner, a director of a company, was summoned for non-compliance, leading to a complaint for prosecution. Investigations revealed irregularities in overseas investments and sale of shares without RBI approval.
2. Allegations and Investigations:
The petitioner's company sold shares of HFCL to FIIs below market rates without RBI approval, violating FERA provisions. Investigations confirmed violations, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The petitioner's argument of being a victim due to association with a corruption-exposing entity was dismissed, and investigations were deemed essential.
3. Legal Arguments:
The petitioner's defense included lack of obligation to seek RBI approval for FII transactions and compliance with SEBI regulations. However, RBI confirmed violations, contradicting the petitioner's claims. The petitioner's plea for bail was based on professional reputation and no risk of absconding, citing legal precedents.
4. Judicial Decision:
The court dismissed the bail application, considering the seriousness of allegations and ongoing investigations. Granting bail was deemed potentially detrimental to evidence collection in complex white-collar crime cases. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigations, especially in cases involving international elements, and concluded that no grounds for bail were established at that stage.
In conclusion, the court denied bail to the petitioner based on the gravity of allegations, ongoing investigations, and the complexity of white-collar crime cases, emphasizing the importance of evidence collection and the lack of established grounds for bail at that juncture.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1207
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
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
Issues:
1. Rehabilitation proposal submission by the company.
2. Direction to deposit a specific amount by the company.
3. Techno-economic and commercial viability determination.
4. Compliance with the provisions of the Act.
5. Justness, equitability, and public interest in winding up the company.
Rehabilitation Proposal Submission:
The company, declared a sick industrial company under the Act, failed to submit a feasible rehabilitation proposal despite multiple opportunities. The Board extended deadlines, permitted a co-promoter, and advertised for alternative promoters, but no concrete proposal emerged. The company's promoters sought more time but failed to deliver, leading to a show cause notice for winding up due to substantial debt. The appellate authority upheld this decision, dismissing the company's appeal. The court found no merit in granting further opportunities as the company had not presented a viable scheme for rehabilitation, indicating a lack of commitment.
Direction to Deposit Specific Amount:
The Board directed the company to deposit a nominal amount as a test of the promoters' bona fides, which was not fulfilled. Despite the manageable sum compared to the debt, the company's failure to comply raised doubts about its intentions and ability to revive. The court upheld this direction, considering it reasonable given the circumstances and the company's financial position.
Techno-Economic and Commercial Viability Determination:
The company argued that the Board had not determined its techno-economic and commercial viability, challenging the validity of the orders. However, the court found no error in the Board's assessment, stating that the Act's provisions were strictly adhered to. The Board's decision was based on expert evaluation, concluding that the company was unlikely to recover and become viable in the future, justifying the decision to wind up the company.
Compliance with the Provisions of the Act:
The court affirmed that the Board and the Appellate Authority had diligently followed the Act's provisions in assessing the company's situation. The decisions were based on thorough examination and compliance, with no legal or factual errors found in the orders issued by the authorities.
Justness, Equitability, and Public Interest in Winding Up:
Considering the company's substantial debt and inability to recover within a reasonable time, the Board's decision to wind up the company was deemed just, equitable, and in the public interest. The court concurred with the authorities' findings, upholding the decision to wind up the company as a necessary step based on the financial circumstances and lack of viable rehabilitation options.
Conclusion:
The writ petition filed by the company was dismissed by the court, with no costs imposed. The decision to wind up the company was upheld, emphasizing the lack of concrete rehabilitation proposals, failure to comply with directives, and the company's significant debt burden as key factors leading to the judgment.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1197
Issues:
Central Excise Duty on yeast captively consumed, burden of marketability, appeal against orders-in-original.
Analysis:
The case involved the issue of Central Excise Duty on yeast captively consumed by the respondent, who contended that yeast emerging in the process of fermentation was not goods as it was neither bought nor sold and was not marketable. The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged in an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment and held that the burden of marketability was on the Department, which was not discharged. Consequently, the orders-in-original were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
The appellant, being aggrieved by the ld. Commissioner's order, filed four appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the facts of the case, where Intelligence Central Excise Officers found the respondent engaged in the manufacture of various products, including yeast for captive consumption. The Tribunal noted that the issue of marketability was crucial, which was conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Laminates Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to its previous decisions in similar cases to support its conclusion.
During the hearing, the ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Dy. Commissioner, while the ld. Counsel for the respondent cited precedents where the Tribunal had held that the goods in question were not marketable, therefore not liable for duty. The ld. Counsel argued that their case was covered by these decisions, and the impugned order should be sustained. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no legal or factual infirmity in the ld. Commissioner's order. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the settled issue of marketability and the precedents cited, ultimately rejecting the appeals filed by the appellant.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the settled principle of marketability as per the Supreme Court judgment and previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, as the burden of marketability was not discharged by the Department, leading to the rejection of the appeals against the orders-in-original.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1187
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Modvat credit and depreciation under the Income-tax Act.
2. Reconsideration of Modvat credit claim in light of the judgment by a co-ordinate Bench.
Analysis:
1. The issue involved in the present case was the interpretation of Modvat credit and depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The appellants had not claimed depreciation on the Modvat credit they had taken up, and it was allowed after deducting the Modvat credit amount. The counsels argued that the revised returns filed excluding the Modvat amount, and accepted by the Income-tax Department, should not lead to disallowance of the Modvat credit merely because the return claimed depreciation on the total value. They relied on Rule 57R(5) and an amendment to Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal directed the Central Excise Commissioner to reconsider the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the accounting practices followed by the appellants. The matter was remanded for de novo consideration by the lower adjudicating authority.
2. The second issue revolved around the reconsideration of the Modvat credit claim in light of a judgment by a co-ordinate Bench. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that a fresh appreciation of facts was necessary in line with the previous judgment. The Tribunal reiterated that unless depreciation was allowed by the Income-tax Department, the credit should not be denied even if claimed in the return by the assessee. Therefore, both appeals were remanded back to the lower adjudicating authority for further examination. The authority was instructed to assess whether claiming depreciation on revenue expenditure under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act would hinder the Modvat credit claim, considering the relevant rules and amendments. The original authority was directed to reconsider the depreciation as contended by the counsels and allow the appeals by way of remand.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct interpretation of Modvat credit and depreciation under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of allowing depreciation by the Income-tax Department before denying the credit to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority highlighted the need for a thorough review of the facts in light of relevant legal provisions and previous judgments.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1186
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. 58/96 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Bangalore regarding valuation issues and redemption fine. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the margin of profit involved in imposing the redemption fine in accordance with Section 125 of the Customs Act. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1185
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore held that empty cartons/boxes/drums/packing materials cleared after emptying modvatable inputs and raw materials are not chargeable to Central Excise duty. The decision was based on previous rulings, including one upheld by the Supreme Court. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1184
Issues:
- Validity of Special Import License for gold jewellery
- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
Validity of Special Import License for gold jewellery:
The case involved an appeal against an adjudication order concerning the import of gold jewellery by an importer. The importer claimed the benefit of Notification No. 117/94-Cus. and produced a Special Import License. However, the Customs authorities informed the importer that the Special Import License was not valid for gold imports from 1-4-2001. The Commissioner of Customs rejected the request for re-export and confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposing a redemption fine and a penalty. The appellants argued that the imposition of fine and penalty was unjustified as they believed the goods were covered by the Special Import License at the time of import, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case.
Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act:
The revenue contended that the goods were not covered by the Special Import License and were rightfully liable for confiscation. They argued that the importer could only re-export the goods after paying the redemption fine and duty, claiming drawback up to 98% of the duty under Section 74 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal considered the peculiar nature of the case where the Special Import License facility was withdrawn after the order was placed but before the import. Referring to previous decisions, the Tribunal noted that in similar situations, re-export without fine and penalty had been allowed.
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty:
Considering the decisions of the Tribunal and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that since the goods were allowed to re-export, there was no basis for imposing a redemption fine and penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the imposition of fine and penalty, allowing the re-export of goods without any additional financial obligations. As a result, the appeals were allowed in favor of the importer.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1183
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal partially. Credit of Rs. 12,36,470 was granted for endorsed Bs/E, but credit of Rs. 12,76,276 was denied for Bs/E lacking importer correspondence. The appellants were represented by Shri R. Parthsarathy, Advocate.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1180
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding Modvat credit disallowance. The lower appellate authority made an error in interpreting Rule 57Q, as the goods were not eligible for credit. The decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1179
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Elecon Engineering Company Ltd. regarding the demand of duty and penalty for assembly of Coal Handling Plant at the appellant's site. The Tribunal held that the Coal Handling Plant is immovable property and not excisable, affirming the decision made by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
............
|
9911796707
