|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 266 Records
-
1983 (11) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ering the omission as purely a mistake, rectified its order so as to cover all the three items, namely, explosives, detonators and safety fuses. Thus, the order of the Tribunal as rectified proceeds on the basis that the said three items sold by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 40,14,743 have to be taxed at multi-point and not a single point treating those items as coming either under entry 53 or under entry 138 of the First Schedule as contended by the Revenue. Though the decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before us, we are convinced that the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion. A perusal of entries 53 and 138 of the First Schedule will clearly indicate that those entries cannot take in either explosives or detonators or safety fuses. Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that these items are taxable at single point has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. In our view, no interference is called for in these cases. The tax cases are accordingly dismissed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 260 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Ltd. s case 1975 35 STC 320 is a complete answer to the argument regarding the scope of enquiry by the Assessing Authority in such matters. The company was under no obligation to question the purchaser about the end user of the goods supplied by it, after it had obtained form D. The Assessing Authority can enquire into the genuineness of the said form, but cannot extend its enquiry up to the ultimate use of the goods. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner overstepped the limits of the enquiry. On the facts placed before us in these petitions, we find that the sales, as referred to the cases in hand, were to the State Governments and were covered by section 8(1) of the Act, rendering the sales liable to taxation at four per cent. Holding, as we do, the writ petitions (No. 4500 of 1981 and 1986 of 1982) are accepted with costs and annexures P-1, P-2, P-13 and P-13(A) (in C.W.P. No. 4500 of 1981) and P-2 (in C.W.P. No. 1986 of 1982) are quashed. SANDHAWALIA, J.-I agree.
-
1983 (11) TMI 259 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nature, it is levy distinct from the impost under section 5(1) or under section 6. This is the clear outcome of the scheme of section 6B and the effect of section 6B(2) of the Act . Section 613(2) by providing for the application of the provisions of the Act to the tax under section 613 as they apply to the sales or purchase tax under the Act, recognises the distinction between the additional tax on the one hand and the other imposts under the Act on the other. It must now be stated that since the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was only in relation to levy under section 6B he could not have enhanced the rate of tax payable on the taxable turnover. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal, in so far it relates to the levy of enhanced rate of tax, is set aside. The order of the Deputy Commissioner in other respect is kept undisturbed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100.
-
1983 (11) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... he remedy by way of a petition under section 446(2)(b). It was held that a petition under section 446(2)(b) was competent and the official liquidator need not file a suit under section 446(2)(a). The matter relating to the bringing of legal representatives of the deceased respondent was not in controversy at all in that decision. Reliance was next placed upon another Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court given in Ram Kola v. Assistant Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Rohtak, AIR 1977 P and H 87, is again of no assistance to the official liquidator as the question related to the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ jurisdiction of the court. In this regard, the Explanation to section 141, CPC, itself makes clear that the expression proceedings under that section does not include any proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the discussion above, the petition has to be treated as having abated.
-
1983 (11) TMI 257 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... een made parties to the present proceedings for reasons best known to the petitioner. The respondent has produced copies of the returns filed before the Registrar of Companies by it for various years starting with 1968, wherein the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as a shareholder. All these facts show that though the petitioner was deprived of these shares long back, yet he did not taken action under section 155 of the Act till 1980. It is also not out of place to mention that voluminous evidence shall have to be recorded by the court in the case as all the above facts shall be proved by the parties concerned. Proceedings under section 155, as already mentioned above, are of summary nature wherein the court is not expected to go into all such intricate and disputed questions of fact. Consequently, I decide the issue in favour of the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss the petition. The petitioner may file a civil suit, if so advised. No order as to costs.
-
1983 (11) TMI 242 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... imately the winding up of the company is not effective. It was laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons 1966 61 ITR 187, that even where a legislation is passed excluding the jurisdiction of a civil court expressly or by clear implication, the same will not affect the pending cases before the court unless specifically mentioned. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, I respectfully agree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Ranulal v. Daudas AIR 1957 Raj 241, and hold that the fact that the winding-up proceedings of defendant No. 1 has come to an end, the same will not affect the jurisdiction of this court in respect of the suit against defendent No. 1 which is pending in this court. I also note that a retransfer of this suit to the Alipore Court will entail multiplicity of proceedings, delay, harassment and further costs. For the above reasons, there will be no order in this application. Cost costs in the suit.
-
1983 (11) TMI 241 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Meetings and proceedings – Contents and manner of service of notice and persons on whom it is to be served
-
1983 (11) TMI 226 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Remuneration of directors ... ... ... ... ..... ntering into a contract of guarantee does not do any manual, clerical, technical, supervisory or administrative work. He gets the commission for the pledge of his credit and not for any services rendered. The guarantee commission payable to a director, therefore, is not remuneration for the services rendered and, consequently, no approval of the Board was required. Because of my finding that the guarantee commission was not remuneration for services rendered, I need not go into the other pleas raised by the petitioners. In conclusion, I accept the writ petition and quash the impugned order dated May 5, 1971 (annexure K ). It is declared that the approval of the Central Govt. or the Board was not required for payment of guarantee commission to the directors under resolutions of the company dated February 24, 1965, and February 1, 1966. The respondents are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner company for not obtaining the said approval. No order as to costs.
-
1983 (11) TMI 217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
EXIM - Quasi-judicial order ... ... ... ... ..... l affidavit. It is not the case of the department that the petitioners misled the department and got the endorsements. It appears that it is the department which had made the mistake in making the endorsements and in such context, the department should have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their case. It is not as if the petitioners have asked for time unreasonably. For the show cause notice, they have asked for time on one occasion for which no reply was given. Only final orders were passed. Therefore I am satisfied that the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity to put forward their case. 4. emsp In the light of what is stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and if the first respondent considers that the matter should be proceeded with further, it is open to the first respondent to proceed with the matter after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (11) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e sole authority for use of these goods in Aircraft. In view of this evidence a request has been made to grant the refund of Rs. 1,24,219.18. 4. Wg. Cdr. Tandon explained the discrepancy between the numbering of the Purchase Order and the DEC and wanted appeal to be allowed. The Departmental Representative stated that the Purchase Order 0044 dated 15-4-1972 was in respect of pound 63224.34 whereas the subject consignment was for a value of pound 10,891.65 and wanted the case to be remanded to the Asstt. Collector for further verification. Shri Tandon explained that the other consignments forming part of this Purchase Order had already been cleared and had been granted the exemption. 5. The Tribunal accepts the explanation for the discrepancy and is of the opinion that there is no reason to doubt the validity and relevance of the Duty Exemption Certificate produced. It, therefore, sets aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allows this appeal with consequential refund.
-
1983 (11) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pplication for grant of exemption of Customs duty dated 25-5-1979, Import Licence No. 2215185 dated 7-4-1979. A copy of invoice issued by M/s. Siemens in respect of the goods and Bill of Entry were filed along with the revision application. 3. After going through the documents filed along with the Revision application and now filed before the Tribunal, Sh. K.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned D.R. agreed that on the basis of documents now produced, the appellants could get the benefit of the notification. The appellants rsquo claim was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs without hearing the appellants or giving them an opportunity to produce the documents. In the circumstances, it would appear just and proper that appellants are allowed to produce documents even at this stage. 4. Considering the foregoing, the appellants rsquo claim for benefit of the Notification No. 35/1979 dated 15-2-1979 is accepted and the appeal allowed with the consequential refund to the appellants.
-
1983 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... onary means a chemical used in medicine. PCMX and DCMX, products derived from 3, 5-Xylenol, are described in the publication (British Pharmacopoeia, British Pharmaceutical Codex, Merek Index, Martindale rsquo s Extra Pharmacopoeia) referred to by the appellants. The use is shown as antiseptic and germicide. PCMX is shown as a disinfectant of low toxicity which is active against streptococci, used chiefly for wounds, external use in obstetrics, post-operative skin disinfections etc. DCMX is described as a bactericide with action similar to that of PCMX and used for the same purposes. There is thus little doubt that 3, 5-Xylenol is a pharmaceutical chemical. 9. ensp We do not, therefore, see any reason to come to a conclusion different from the one reached by the Tribunal in the orders in appeals 529/80-C and 187/77-C. 10. ensp We allow both the appeals. The consequential relief shall be granted to the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1983 (11) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... scope to invoke the Interpretative Rule 3(c) and since by common agreement the goods are ball bearings, they fall squarely under sub-heading (1) of Heading 84.62. When an appropriate heading for the goods themselves is available in the Tariff, the question of invoking the Interpretative Rule 4 to search for some other heading appropriate to the akin goods does not arise. We, therefore, hold that the subject spindle bearings were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.62(1). Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 10A. ensp Applying the ratio of this order to the present seven appeals, we order that the imported goods be classified under item 84.62(1) for the purpose of Customs duty. As we have held that these are bearings we further order that the C.V. duty for these items should be charged under item 49 CET. Necessary consequential action may be taken in the light of these orders. 11. ensp The seven appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1983 (11) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... both the sides and referred to the various technical books and the orders of the Tribunal referred to earlier in this order. We find ourselves inclined to follow the ratio of the decision in Appeal No. 521/80-C (Order No. 176/83-C, dated 19 4-1983). It is not in dispute that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of glass bulbs and tubes and have imported the goods for their own use. The mere feasibility of the subject goods to be used as colouring material does not, in our view, confer on the Customs authorities the right to subject them to a classification with reference to revenue considerations. We also note that the manufacturers have in their letter of 11-3-1975 stated that ldquo Blue Star lsquo P rsquo grade rdquo is not of pigment grade and is used in the manufacture of glass and plastics. In the result, accepting the ratio of the decision in Appeal No. 521/80-C, we set aside the appellate order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1983 (11) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... case. 8. ensp In view of the admitted position of both the parties that the goods involved in this case are the same as were the subject matter of the two appeals referred to above, copies whereof have been taken on record, and in view of the fact that no further arguments have been offered in this case, we go by our earlier decision in the said appeals, and dispose of the present appeal on the same terms. In the result the present appeal is allowed to the effect that the said wires do not fall under T.I. 50 of the CET and in the consequence, the duties demanded from the appellants and the penalty imposed on them as well as order of confiscation of the goods seized from them, are all set aside. This order, however, would be without prejudice to Department rsquo s right to consider alternative classification for these goods, with reference to T.I. 26AA(ia) or T.I. 68, which question we leave open to be decided in the light of new facts that may be placed and proved on record.
-
1983 (11) TMI 201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export - Export House Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... not be permitted to import items which are canalised items under the Import Policy of 1983-84. I am not impressed by the submission. The canalised items are not banned items and there is no reason why the petitioners should be compelled to approach the canalising agency for import of the same when such items were not canalised during the years 1978-79. The mere fact that the petition remains pending for over several years should not cause prejudice to the petitioners. In spite of the fact that more than a year had lapsed from the date of my judgment in the petition mentioned hereinabove, the respondents have not cared to grant certificate to the petitioners. The Court cannot permit prejudice to the parties merely because the petition remains pending in the Court for reasons over which the Court has no control. In my judgment, the petitioners would not be entitled to import only those items which are specifically banned under the Import Policy prevalent at the time of import.
-
1983 (11) TMI 198 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal Memorandum - Estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... ackinnon Mackenzie and Co. v. Collector of Customs, 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1941 (CEGAT). However, an officer has been defined in sub-section 30 of Section 2 of the Company Act. According to this definition an officer includes inter alia a manager of the Company. Thus the appeal filed by the appellant and signed by Shri K.H. Jani as Claims Manager of the appellant company, is in order. 7. Now coming to the merit of the case as per argument of the learned authorised representative on behalf of the appellant I hold that the appellant rsquo s case is fully covered by the Calcutta High Court judgment in Matter No. 1561 of 1981 in the case of Everett (India) Pvt. Ltd. The facts are the same and earlier judgment of this court also fully covers the case of the appellant. The appellant rsquo s appeal is accepted. The revenue is directed to refund the penalty of Rs. 7,490/- if paid by the appellant within two months from the date of this order. For statistical purposes the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (11) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Remission of duty on goods lost or destroyed by natural causes ... ... ... ... ..... ty on the lost or destroyd goods need not be recovered under the rule (196). In this case, the officer would not have been so satisfied as the loss was not attributable to natural causes or unavoidable accident. 6. The intention under Notification No. 34/73-C.E. must be understood only as a legal device to allow clearance under concession because when it (concession) is being taken (at the time of clearance), actual use is obviously a physical impossibility. But mere intention can never be a basis for such a concession, notwithstanding the appellant rsquo s claim, because then no concession-goods need be really used as intended, once the intention is declared at the time of clearance, an absurd state of matters. We hold that actual use must follow intention if the concession is to be earned, unless the intention is frustrated by the intervention of events such as natural causes or unavoidable accidents. 7. We see no merits in Hindustan Insecticides appeal and so we reject it.
-
1983 (11) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLLASIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... necessary documents, namely, the end-use affidavit, a certificate from their General Manager, certifying the essentiality of these components for the manufacture of the said machine as well as the drawings, purchase order, write-up etc. These documents clearly show that the ldquo Retaining Rings rdquo in question are used in the Assembly/manufacture of Bowl Mill which is classifiable under heading 84.56 CTA, 1975, being a machine for pulverising coal. The appellants have, therefore, claimed exemption under Notification No. 35-Cus. dated 15-2-1979 as amended. 3. emsp The Senior Departmental Representative raised an objection that the documents showing functions of the Bowl Mill ought to have been produced at the earlier stages. However he had no comments on the merits of the case. 4. emsp The Bench has considered the submissions made by both the parties and on the basis of the evidence produced before us, we set aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allow this appeal.
-
1983 (11) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... also submitted additional documents, namely, drawing of G.V. Servomotor indicator and drawings of Electro Hydraulic Governor which show the actual use of the potentiometers and the Displacement Transducers as components of the Water Turbine. 3. ensp The Sr. Departmental Representative maintains that the appeal was rightly rejected by the Appellate Collector because these documents had not been produced before him. He has, however, no objection to the admission of the appeal if these additional documents are admitted by the Bench. 4. ensp The Bench has considered carefully the submissions made by both the parties and admits the additional evidence given by the appellants. The goods are clearly the component parts of Water Turbine which are classified under Tariff Item No. 84.07 CTA, 1975 and eligible for exemption of Customs Duty under Notification No. 35/79 dated 15-2-1979 as amended. The Bench therefore, sets aside the order of the Appellate Collector and allows the appeal.
........
|
