|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 357
Disciplinary action was initiated against him on the charge that the committed theft of gold in the course of his employment. Based on the report of the enquiry which found him guilty of the charge, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service forfeiting all rights and privileges that had accrued to him from his past service. The employee thereafter moved the Assistant Labour Commissioner claiming gratuity for the services rendered by him prior to the date of termination. The employer contended that as the employee was dismissed from service after finding him guilty of theft which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, the gratuity payable to him stood wholly forfeited in view of Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Act. The Assistant Labour Commissioner held that as no show cause notice was issued to the employee the forfeiture of gratuity was wrong. The application filed by the employee was accordingly allowed and the employer was directed to pay gratuity. The matter went to Division Bench of the High Court after travelling the proper channels. The High Court held that in view of the amendment to Section 4(6) (b) an employer has to take an independent decision after termination of service of an employee as to whether gratuity payable should at all be forfeited and if so, to what extent.
-
1986 (7) TMI 356
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and ruled that purchases of shrimps, prawns, and lobsters for export contracts are not taxable turnover. The respondents must pay the costs of the appeals.
-
1986 (7) TMI 347
Issues Involved
1. Winding-up petition against the respondent company.
2. Appointment of a provisional liquidator.
3. Report of the provisional liquidator regarding the company's liabilities and assets.
4. Application by the President, Mill Mazdoor Sangh, under section 530(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
5. Objections by the State Bank of India regarding the sale of attached goods.
6. Prioritization of workers' dues under amended sections 529, 529A, and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Detailed Analysis
1. Winding-up Petition Against the Respondent Company
The petitioner firm, Gendalal Bhaggaji, filed a winding-up petition against the respondent company under sections 433, 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the grounds that the respondent company is unable to pay its debts. Upon issuance of a show cause notice, the respondent company filed a reply opposing the petition.
2. Appointment of a Provisional Liquidator
The petitioner filed I.A. No. 949 of 1986 for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The court appointed the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator on April 4, 1986, as the respondent did not oppose the appointment.
3. Report of the Provisional Liquidator
The provisional liquidator submitted a report dated May 8, 1986, detailing the company's financial status. The report indicated that the company's fixed assets were mortgaged/hypothecated to the Industrial Development Bank of India and M.P. Financial Corporation, while movable assets were hypothecated to the State Bank of India. The total liabilities exceeded Rs. 1,000 lakhs, with significant amounts owed to various creditors, including Rs. 792 lakhs to the State Bank of India and Rs. 200 lakhs to the Industrial Development Bank of India and M.P. Financial Corporation.
4. Application by the President, Mill Mazdoor Sangh
The President, Mill Mazdoor Sangh, Ratlam, filed I.A. No. 2032 of 1986 under section 530(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, requesting permission for the Tahsildar to sell the attached goods of the company and pay the workers their due wages from the sale proceeds. This application was based on a decree passed by the Labour Commissioner for Rs. 9,99,955.45 in favor of the workers.
5. Objections by the State Bank of India
The State Bank of India opposed the application, arguing that no winding-up order had been passed and that all movable goods were hypothecated to the bank. They contended that the Tahsildar could not sell the attached goods. The bank cited several judgments to support their position, including M.K. Ranganathan v. Govt. of Madras and Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar.
6. Prioritization of Workers' Dues
The President, Mill Mazdoor Sangh, argued that the amended sections 529, 529A, and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, provided workers with priority over other creditors. The amendments introduced a pari passu charge in favor of workmen's dues and established that such dues should be paid in priority to all other debts. The counsel for the State Bank of India countered that the workers' priority could not be enforced as no winding-up order had been passed and the bank was not a party to the decree by the Labour Commissioner.
Judgment
The court acknowledged the force in the submissions made by the State Bank of India but noted the exceptional circumstances, including the closure of the mill, unpaid wages, and the tense situation among the workers. The court referenced the National Textile Workers' Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan case, which affirmed the workers' right to be heard in winding-up petitions.
Given the peculiar facts and the need to prevent further deterioration of the attached goods, the court partially allowed the application. The Tahsildar, Ratlam, was permitted to sell the attached goods in the presence of the provisional liquidator by public auction. The sale proceeds were to be deposited by the provisional liquidator in a nationalized bank until further orders.
-
1986 (7) TMI 346
Issues:
Violation of section 5(1) and section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 - Non-repatriation of export proceeds - Interpretation of statutory provisions.
Analysis:
The case involved an exporter of cashew-nuts who entered into a contract with a foreign buyer for the sale of cashewnuts. The appellant faced allegations of contravening section 5(1) and section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for not repatriating an amount from the value of goods exported within the prescribed period. The Assistant Director of Enforcement initiated proceedings against the appellant, leading to a fine imposed by an order dated December 7, 1977. The appellant appealed to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, arguing that adjustments made by the agent did not require specific sanction and that no offence was committed. The Appellate Board accepted the appellant's contentions regarding section 5(1)(a) but found a contravention of section 12(2) due to non-repatriation of a specific amount.
The key contention of the appellant was that the Appellate Board erred in affirming the findings under section 12(2) of the Act. The appellant argued that the Madras High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the need for full repatriation in completed sales, should have been preferred over the Calcutta High Court's view. The court analyzed the Madras High Court's decision in Venkata Subbu v. Director of Enforcement, which clarified the application of section 12(2) to both export on sale and export for sale scenarios. The court highlighted the legislative intent and the importance of interpreting economic offences in a manner that conserves foreign exchange resources.
The court ultimately upheld the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, emphasizing the need to interpret the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in a manner that safeguards the country's foreign exchange resources. The court preferred the interpretation provided by the Madras High Court over the Calcutta High Court's view, concluding that the appeal was rightly decided. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1986 (7) TMI 332
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to rectification of the share register.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act:
The primary question was whether the petition filed under Section 155 of the Companies Act was maintainable. The learned company judge initially found that the arrangement between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was more than a mere proposal. However, the judge ruled the petition non-maintainable for several reasons:
- Non-compliance with Section 108: The petitioner did not comply with the provisions of Section 108 of the Companies Act. No instrument of transfer was drawn up and delivered to the company, raising doubts about the court's ability to order rectification based on a mere order of transfer.
- Lack of Agreement with the Company: There was no agreement between the petitioner and the company or with any shareholder of the company. The petition did not disclose the name of any shareholder with whom the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 negotiated and came to an agreement.
- Absence of Necessary Particulars: The petitioner did not furnish the details referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 150 (1) of the Act, which are essential for the removal of shareholders' names and entering other names in their place.
- Discretion under Section 155(2): The court has discretion under Section 155(2) of the Companies Act and may not find it desirable to pronounce on the question of title at this stage since the scope of the agreement is in dispute in O. S. No. 245 of 1976.
The court referred to various rulings, including Ramakrishna Rao v. Krishna Rao (1947) 1 MLJ 75 and Mahendra Kumar Jain v. Federal Chemical Works Ltd. (1965) 35 Comp. Cas. 651, which were decided under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The court also considered the ruling in Madras-Bangalore Transport Co. P. Ltd. v. K. A. Sebastian (1975) KLT 655, which held that where the matter can more conveniently be decided in a suit, relief under Section 155 may be refused. The court concluded that the reasoning of the Gujarat High Court in Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel of Baroda (1978) 48 Comp. Cas. 438 was preferable regarding the scope of Section 155.
2. Entitlement to Rectification of the Share Register:
The court found that the petitioner had a prima facie case for rectification of the share register. The evidence showed that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had entered into agreements (exhibits A-1 and A-2) to purchase shares and jointly improve the estate. The petitioner provided necessary funds for purchasing the shares, and substantial amounts were spent from the joint funds for the Thandiyode business. The court noted that the acquisition of shares by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was for the common benefit of all three parties, and the petitioner was entitled to one-third right in the shares.
The court ordered the following:
- Declaration of Title/Right: The appellant's title/right to one-third right in the shares acquired in the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the first respondent company was declared.
- Inclusion in Share Register: The appellant was declared entitled to have his name included in the share register of the first respondent company along with the names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
- Execution of Transfer Instruments: Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to execute necessary instruments of transfer of shares within one month and deliver them to the first respondent company as required under Section 108 of the Companies Act. The first respondent company was directed to rectify its share register accordingly.
- Compliance with Statutory Provisions: The appellant and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to comply with other statutory provisions, including furnishing particulars required under Section 150 and notice to the Registrar under Section 156 of the Companies Act.
- Execution in Case of Non-compliance: If the respondents failed to comply with the directions, the appellant was entitled to have the order executed through an officer appointed by the court at the cost of the respondents.
The appeal was allowed, and there was no order as to costs. The court appreciated the thorough preparation and arguments presented by counsel for both parties.
-
1986 (7) TMI 331
Issues Involved:
1. Whether computer-printed memorandum and articles of association can be accepted as "printed" under section 15 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. The interpretation of the term "printed" within the context of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. The applicability of technological advancements in printing to legal requirements.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Acceptance of Computer-Printed Memorandum and Articles of Association:
The petitioner, a firm of chartered accountants, argued that computer printing is a well-developed technology and should be accepted similarly to offset printing, which was recognized by the Department of Company Affairs in Circular No. 3/81 dated December 15, 1981. The petitioner submitted the memorandum and articles of association of six companies, all printed by a reputed firm using computer technology. However, the Registrar of Companies rejected these documents, stating they did not comply with section 15 of the Companies Act, which mandates that the memorandum and articles of association must be printed. The Registrar argued that computer printing is akin to typing, susceptible to erasing, defacing, and tampering, and thus not recognized as "printing" under the Act.
2. Interpretation of the Term "Printed":
The court examined the definition of "print" and "printing" from various dictionaries and legal texts, including Webster's Dictionary, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, and Encyclopaedia Britannica. The definitions highlighted that "printing" involves the process of multiplying copies by impressing letters or characters onto a surface. The court noted that printing is a technique for applying a quantity of coloring agent onto a specified surface to form text or illustrations. The court emphasized that the term "printing" should not be confined to traditional methods but should be interpreted in light of technological advancements.
3. Applicability of Technological Advancements in Printing:
The court acknowledged the significant technological advancements in printing, including computer printing, and emphasized that the law should not remain static but be dynamic. The court rejected the Registrar's argument that computer printing might fade over time, stating that this was a mere guess unsupported by technical data. The court also dismissed the concern that accepting computer printing would open the floodgates for recognizing typewritten or cyclostyled materials, noting the clear distinction between these methods and computer printing.
The court concluded that computer printing fulfills the requirements of printing as defined by the various sources consulted. The court held that obstacles should not be placed in the path of scientific progress and that the benefits of computer printing should not be ignored. The court quoted Viscount Simon, emphasizing that clinging to the literal interpretation of the law misses the truth and substance of the matter.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Registrar to accept the computer-printed memorandum and articles of association. The court held that the Registrar's refusal to recognize computer printing as "printing" under section 15 of the Companies Act was not justified. The court emphasized the importance of adapting legal interpretations to accommodate technological advancements, ensuring that the law remains dynamic and relevant.
-
1986 (7) TMI 330
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the landlord is entitled to payment of arrears of rent accrued after the winding-up order in full or must prove the debt in the winding-up and be paid pari passu with the other creditors.
2. Interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
3. The significance of the official liquidator's actions concerning the retention of the leased property.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Payment of Arrears of Rent:
The primary issue was whether the landlord is entitled to full payment of arrears of rent accrued after the winding-up order or must prove the debt in the winding-up and be paid pari passu with other creditors. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, particularly section 528, which states that all debts and claims against the company shall be admissible to proof in the winding-up. The general principle, as explained in Oak Pits Colliery Co., In re [1882] 21 Ch D 322, is to put all unsecured creditors on an equal footing and pay them pari passu. The landlord needed to show a specific provision under the Companies Act that entitled him to full payment, failing which his application would not succeed.
2. Interpretation of Relevant Provisions:
The court analyzed section 530 of the Companies Act, which deals with preferential payments. Sub-section (6) of section 530 states that "the costs and expenses of the winding-up" take precedence over other debts. The landlord contended that the arrears of rent should be considered part of these costs and expenses. The court referred to Palmer's Company Law, which states that if the liquidator retains possession of the property for the convenience of the liquidation or for better realization of the assets, the rent is payable as an expense of the liquidation. The court also examined relevant case law, including Oak Pits Colliery Co., In re [1882] 21 Ch D 322, and ABC Coupler and Engineering Co. Ltd. (No. 3), In re [1970] 1 All ER 650 (Ch D), to determine whether the retention of the property was for the benefit of the liquidation.
3. Actions of the Official Liquidator:
The court found that the official liquidator did not retain the godown for the convenience or benefit of the winding-up. The landlord's application did not contain any averment suggesting that the godown was retained for the purpose of the liquidation. The official liquidator merely left the goods pledged with the bank in the godown, and the bank, as a secured creditor, was outside the winding-up process. Therefore, the retention of the godown was not necessary for the purpose of winding up the company, and the rent accruing after the commencement of the winding-up could not be considered an expense of the liquidation.
Interpretation of Rule 157 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959:
The landlord's counsel argued that under rule 157, the landlord is entitled to full payment of rent if the liquidator remains in occupation of the premises. However, the Supreme Court's judgment in Official Liquidators, U.P. Union Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. Rameshwar Nath Agarwal [1960] 30 Comp. Cas. 114, clarified that the proviso to rule 157 does not deal with priority in payment of debts but merely affirms the landlord's right to claim rent accruing due after the winding-up order. The Supreme Court emphasized that the rent accruing after the winding-up order cannot be claimed in priority unless it is shown to be part of the costs and expenses of liquidation.
Conclusion:
The court held that the rent accrued for the godown after the winding-up order could not be treated as part of the "costs and expenses of the winding-up." The landlord must prove his debt in the winding-up and be paid pari passu with other creditors. The application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made. The further question of whether the company or the bank was liable to pay the arrears of rent was left for consideration at a later stage.
-
1986 (7) TMI 329
Issues Involved:
1. Professional status of Shri C.R. Alimchandani.
2. Remuneration under Section 309 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Central Government's obligation to express an opinion on professional qualifications.
4. Distinction between professional services and managing director duties.
5. Compliance with Section 269 of the Companies Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Professional Status of Shri C.R. Alimchandani:
The petitioner company sought the Central Government's opinion on the professional status of Shri C.R. Alimchandani, appointed as senior chief consultant. The petition highlighted his qualifications, including a civil engineering degree from Poona University, advanced studies in France, and recognition as an expert in pre-stressed concrete technology. The respondents did not contest these qualifications, implicitly acknowledging his professional status.
2. Remuneration under Section 309 of the Companies Act, 1956:
Section 309 controls the remuneration of directors, including managing and whole-time directors. The proviso to Section 309(1) allows remuneration for professional services if the Central Government opines that the director possesses the requisite qualifications. The petitioner company invoked this provision, seeking an opinion from the Central Government, which was not provided in the impugned letter dated January 14, 1983. The court noted that the Central Government's failure to express an opinion was unjustified, given the undisputed qualifications of Shri Alimchandani.
3. Central Government's Obligation to Express an Opinion on Professional Qualifications:
The court emphasized that upon invoking Section 309(1), it is incumbent upon the Central Government to express an opinion on the professional qualifications of a director. The Central Government's refusal to do so, instead requiring compliance with other provisions of company law, was deemed inappropriate. The court directed the Central Government to convey its opinion on Shri Alimchandani's qualifications within two months.
4. Distinction Between Professional Services and Managing Director Duties:
The petitioner company passed two resolutions: one appointing Shri Alimchandani as senior chief consultant and another reappointing him as managing director without additional remuneration. The court clarified that Section 309 does not prohibit directors from rendering professional services. The remuneration for such services, if deemed professional by the Central Government, does not require prior approval. The court rejected the argument that Shri Alimchandani's monthly salary as a consultant implied whole-time employment, noting no prohibition against professionals being employees.
5. Compliance with Section 269 of the Companies Act:
While the petition also touched upon the approval required under Section 269 for the reappointment of a managing director, the court confined its decision to the expression of opinion on professional qualifications. The respondents were allowed to proceed according to the law regarding the reappointment of Shri Alimchandani as managing director.
Conclusion:
The writ petition succeeded, and the court quashed the order dated January 14, 1983, insofar as it related to the non-expression of opinion on Shri Alimchandani's professional qualifications. It declared that Shri Alimchandani possesses the requisite qualifications for practicing as a civil engineer and directed the Central Government to convey this opinion to the petitioner company within two months. The court's decision did not affect the Central Government's approval process for the reappointment of Shri Alimchandani as managing director.
-
1986 (7) TMI 328
Issues:
Violation of provisions of rule 10 read with section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Whether the offense is a continuing one or not.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment involves two applications concerning the violation of rule 10 read with section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, where the petitioners failed to submit a return as required by the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, by the specified deadline of 30th June each year. The complaint alleged a continuing offense punishable under rule 11 of the said Rules, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioners challenged the cognizance taken after the limitation period had passed, arguing that the offense was not of a continuing nature, citing a previous decision under section 162 of the Companies Act [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].
In analyzing the nature of the offense, the court considered the provisions of rule 10, which mandated the filing of a return with the Registrar by the specified date. The court noted that the requirement of filing the return under rule 10 continues beyond the deadline, as failure to do so is punishable under rule 11. The court reasoned that the offense is continuing until the return is filed, and paying a fine does not absolve the company from fulfilling the filing requirement. Therefore, the court concluded that the offense arising from non-compliance with rule 10 is a continuing offense, allowing the proceedings to proceed despite the limitation argument raised by the petitioners [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].
Furthermore, the court addressed the contention that the petition of complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate the violation of section 58A of the Companies Act. The court clarified that the violation was evident from the non-filing of the return as required under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, dismissing the argument raised by the petitioners [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].
In conclusion, the court rejected the application, affirming that the offense in question was a continuing one under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, and therefore not barred by limitation. The judgment emphasized the ongoing nature of the offense until compliance with the filing requirement, ensuring that companies fulfill their obligations under the Companies Act, 1956 [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].
-
1986 (7) TMI 303
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and demand of value and duty for 452 bundles of polyurethane foam destroyed by fire.
2. Confiscation of 58 bundles of polyurethane foam for lack of identification marks.
3. Demand of duty for alleged clandestine removal of 12,311 kgs of polyurethane foam.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Confiscation and Demand of Value and Duty for 452 Bundles of Polyurethane Foam Destroyed by Fire:
The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of polyurethane foam. On 14-10-1981, Central Excise Officers conducted a surprise visit and found 452 bundles of polyurethane foam not accounted for in the statutory records. These bundles were seized but later handed over to the manufacturer for safe custody. The goods were subsequently destroyed by fire. The Collector demanded the value of the goods (Rs. 1,02,960) and duty on the destroyed goods. The appellants contended that the goods were not fully manufactured and thus not removed to the bonded store room, and no duty should be demanded for goods destroyed by accidental fire. The Tribunal found that since the goods were destroyed due to natural causes and not removed from the factory, no duty was demandable. The demand for the value of the goods was also deemed illegal. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Shri Jagnathan Dattatraya Shah, which held that penal provisions cannot be enforced if performance becomes impossible due to an act of God. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order demanding the value and duty on the destroyed goods.
2. Confiscation of 58 Bundles of Polyurethane Foam for Lack of Identification Marks:
The officers discovered 58 bundles of polyurethane foam without identification marks at a godown in Daman. The appellants argued that these bundles were part of 330 bundles sold to Agfa Foam and removed under valid gate-passes. The Collector did not accept this explanation, noting inconsistencies in the appellants' statements and the lack of payment from Agfa for the stored goods. The Tribunal supported the Collector's finding, rejecting the appellants' claim of a clerical mistake and noting the improbability of 58 bundles lacking markings due to an error. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the 58 bundles, finding no merit in the appellants' contention that non-marking did not amount to clandestine removal.
3. Demand of Duty for Alleged Clandestine Removal of 12,311 Kgs of Polyurethane Foam:
The Collector demanded duty for 12,311 kgs of polyurethane foam allegedly removed without payment of duty. The appellants argued that these goods were covered by valid gate-passes and transported through railways. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to convincingly correlate the gate-passes with the railway receipts. The Collector found discrepancies in the destinations and quantities mentioned in the gate-passes and railway receipts. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's finding, agreeing that the appellants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were duty-paid and validly removed.
Penalty:
The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellants for various violations, including non-accounting of 452 bundles, illicit removal of 58 bundles, and clandestine removal of 12,311 kgs of polyurethane foam. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the quantum of the penalty, given the deliberate nature of the violations.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order demanding the value and duty on the 452 bundles destroyed by fire. However, the Tribunal confirmed the Collector's order regarding the confiscation of 58 bundles and the demand of duty for the clandestine removal of 12,311 kgs of polyurethane foam. The penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Collector was also upheld.
-
1986 (7) TMI 302
Issues:
Determining assessable value based on ex-factory sale prices or deducting specific cost elements from destination sale prices.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a dispute regarding the assessable value of products for the period from 1-10-1975 to 15-3-1977. The appellant sought two alternatives for determining the assessable value: using ex-factory sale prices or deducting certain cost elements categorized as "actual transportation charges" from destination sale prices. The Appellate Collector had earlier rejected the first alternative and included handling and delivery charges in the assessable value, a decision that was not appealed and became final.
Regarding the second alternative, the Appellate Collector allowed deduction of specific transportation charges made by the appellants, leading to the present appeal. The appellants provided a detailed breakdown of "handling and forwarding charges" to the Assistant Collector, which included various cost elements such as distribution charges, vehicle expenditure, interest on vehicles, depreciation on vehicles, sales promotion expenses, and more.
Upon review, the Tribunal held that certain elements like vehicle expenditure, interest on vehicles, and depreciation on vehicles should be considered as part of transportation costs and allowed for deduction. However, elements like distribution charges, district expenses, and sales promotion expenses were deemed unrelated to actual transport charges and were rejected for deduction. The Tribunal also questioned the clarity of the item "bottle breakages" in terms of its relation to transportation.
Consequently, the appeal was partially allowed only to the extent of allowing deductions for specific cost elements related to transportation, as detailed in paragraph 5 of the judgment. The rejection of other items not directly linked to transportation charges was upheld. The Tribunal directed that consequential relief be granted to the appellants in line with the decision.
-
1986 (7) TMI 301
Issues:
Classification of Grinding Discs under Item 84.59 CTA or Item 84.56 CTA.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of Grinding Discs used in machinery for the manufacture of Soda Ash. The Custom House classified the goods under Item 84.59 CTA, while the appellants claimed re-classification under Item 84.56 CTA. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector upheld the classification under Item 84.59 CTA, emphasizing that machinery for extractive industries falls under this category based on CCCN Explanatory Notes.
The appellants argued that the emphasis on extractive industries was not present in CTA and that Item 84.56 covers machinery for crushing, grinding, and mixing mineral substances. They contended that the goods should be re-classified under Item 84.56, citing relevant case law to support their position.
The learned DR opposed the re-classification, stating that soda ash is a chemical product, not a mineral, and referred to Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 to support the classification under Item 84.59 CTA.
The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and relevant provisions. They noted that the imported machinery was used for crushing soda ash into fine powder, involving crushing and grinding processes. Referring to a previous judgment on a similar issue, the Tribunal agreed that the machinery should be classified under Item 84.56 CTA, as it was more specific and appropriate for the purpose.
The Tribunal rejected the DR's argument regarding Chapter Note 5, stating that the machinery's intended use for crushing and grinding aligned with the classification under Item 84.56 CTA. Therefore, they allowed the appeal, ordering the re-classification of the goods under Item 84.56 CTA and granting consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (7) TMI 300
Issues: Classification of manufactured products under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET vs. Tariff Item 68 CET
In this case, the primary issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the classification of three products manufactured by the respondents under the Central Excise Tariff. The products in question were identified as (1) MAT - LAC - HD - 50 MICRONS, (2) MAT - LAC - FL - 50 MICRONS, and (3) LAC - HD - 75 MICRONS. The appellants contended that these products, although lacquered, should still be classified as Polyester Film falling under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET. They cited a Trade Notice and a letter from the Central Board of Customs & Excise to support their argument. However, the Assistant Collector rejected this classification, stating that the products had undergone a manufacturing process that changed their identity from Polyester Film. He classified the goods under Tariff Item 68 and denied the appellants' claim for classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) with exemption Notification No. 231/82-CE.
The appellants then appealed to the Collector (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The Collector determined that the products were indeed polyester films even after coating. Test reports on similar products confirmed that the products were plastic film made of polyester with a thickness less than 0.25mm. The Collector concluded that the lacquering process did not change the essential nature of the products, as acknowledged by an expert in the field. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Assistant Collector's order and directing the classification of the products under Tariff Item 15A(2) with the benefit of Notification No. 231/82.
Subsequently, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenging the Collector's order. The Revenue argued that the products should be classified under Tariff Item 68 as photographic film, losing their identity as polyester film after coating. The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, reviewed the manufacturing process, test reports, and expert affidavit. They found it difficult to accept that the products lost their identity as Polyester Films after lacquering. Referring to relevant Board letters and Trade Notices, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the classification under Tariff Item 15A(2) CET for the manufactured products.
-
1986 (7) TMI 299
The appellants claimed refund of Additional (Countervailing) duty on two grounds. They dropped the first ground and focused on the second ground. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, assessing the goods under item 10 of Central Excise Tariff instead of Tariff Item 11A as done by the Revenue. The appeal was allowed, and the Revenue was directed to grant relief within six months.
-
1986 (7) TMI 292
Issues: Appeal maintainability before the Appellate Board; Legality of Deputy Director's actions in determining appeal competence; Striking down the decision communicated by Deputy Director.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in exporting fresh fruits and vegetables, faced legal proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Despite being discharged earlier due to lack of criminal complaints, the petitioner received an adjudication order in 1979, holding him guilty of violations. The order allowed for an appeal to be filed within 45 days before the Chairman, Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board.
2. The petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal, but the Deputy Director questioned the timeliness of the appeal. The Deputy Director, invoking Section 23(D)(1) of the Act, stated that the order was not appealable under Section 52, and the reference to an appeal was an error. The Deputy Director extended the opportunity period for compliance, leading to the petitioner challenging the decision through a petition.
3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Deputy Director's actions were illegal as the Appellate Board should determine the appeal's maintainability, timeliness, and merit. It was emphasized that the authority whose decision is appealed should not unilaterally decide on appeal competence. The Department's counsel acknowledged the flaw in the Deputy Director's order but attempted to justify it based on a previous decision by the Board. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing the need for the Board to hear the petitioner before making a decision.
4. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, striking down the decision communicated by the Deputy Director. The court directed the Deputy Director to await the Appellate Board's decision before proceeding further. No costs were awarded in this case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 291
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of an order under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 regarding contravention of provisions by petitioners, ownership of seized gold ornaments, and validity of penalties imposed.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the legality of an order passed by the Government of India under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, alleging contravention of provisions. The petitioners, including a shop owner and certified goldsmiths, were accused of conducting business without a valid license. The authorities seized gold ornaments and primary gold from the shop premises, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The Deputy Collector of Customs found the shop owner guilty, confiscating the items and imposing penalties, while the certified goldsmiths were acquitted. The petitioners appealed, but the Collector of Customs upheld the decision. Subsequently, the Government of India revised the order, reducing the fine imposed on the shop owner. The petitioners then filed a petition challenging this revisional order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The primary issue revolved around whether the shop owner contravened Section 27(1) of the Act by conducting business without a valid license. The legal definition of a "dealer" under the Act was crucial, encompassing various activities related to gold dealings. The authorities found that the seized gold ornaments belonged to the shop owner based on evidence, despite claims that they belonged to the certified goldsmiths. Statements from the shop owner and the goldsmiths, along with surrounding circumstances, indicated that the shop owner had control over the gold ornaments. The shop owner's explanation that the gold was held for safekeeping was deemed implausible given the business context. The court upheld the authorities' conclusion that the shop owner contravened the Act by engaging in gold dealings without a valid license, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
In conclusion, the court discharged the rule, upholding the revisional order and finding no grounds for the petitioners' challenge. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 286
Issues:
1. Alleged contravention of Section 5(1) and Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 12(2) regarding non-repatriation of export proceeds.
Analysis:
The case involved an exporter of cashewnuts who entered into a contract with a foreign buyer for the sale of cashewnuts. The appellant faced allegations of contravening Section 5(1) and Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Assistant Director of Enforcement initiated proceedings against the appellant for not repatriating an amount from the value of the goods exported within the prescribed period. The Assistant Director imposed a fine on the appellant for the contravention. The appellant appealed before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, arguing that the adjustments made by the agent did not require specific sanction and that no offence was committed. The Appellate Board accepted the appellant's contentions regarding Section 5(1)(a) but found the appellant guilty of contravening Section 12(2) due to non-repatriation of a specific amount.
The appellant challenged the Appellate Board's decision through a Second Appeal, emphasizing that the Board should have followed a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court instead of being bound by an earlier decision of the Madras High Court. The High Court analyzed the interpretations of Section 12(2) by both the Madras and Calcutta High Courts. The Madras High Court's decision highlighted the obligations of a person entitled to sell or procure the sale of goods exported, emphasizing the importance of full payment by the foreign buyer. The High Court agreed with the Madras view, considering the legislative intent and the need for a workable interpretation of the Act to conserve foreign exchange resources.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the decision of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The court preferred the interpretation of Section 12(2) as per the Madras High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of conserving foreign exchange resources and effective oversight of transactions. The appeal was consequently dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
1986 (7) TMI 283
Issues:
1. Seizure of gold slabs believed to be of foreign origin.
2. Validity of impugned order under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Application of statutory presumption under Sections 120, 111(d), and 123 of the Act.
4. Confiscation of smuggled gold of foreign origin.
5. Redemption option for seized gold.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the seizure of gold slabs believed to be of foreign origin from the residential premises of the appellants. The gold was found in the possession of the appellants without a satisfactory explanation for its licit acquisition, leading to its seizure by the authorities under mahazar, attested by witnesses.
2. The validity of the impugned order under the Customs Act, 1962 was challenged by the appellants' counsel on various grounds. The counsel argued that the adjudicating authority failed to invoke the presumption under Section 123 of the Act in the show cause notice, thus rendering any reliance on it in the order of adjudication invalid. Additionally, the counsel contested the findings of the Mint Officer regarding the foreign origin of the gold, citing lack of reasons provided and questioning the authority of the officer who conducted the tests.
3. The application of statutory presumptions under Sections 120, 111(d), and 123 of the Customs Act was a key issue in the judgment. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that once the gold was proven to be of foreign origin, the presumption under Section 123 automatically applied. The counsel contended that the gold's foreign origin made it liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act, irrespective of any changes in its form or shape.
4. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Sections 120 and 111(d) of the Act concerning confiscation of improperly imported goods. It clarified that even if imported gold was converted into a different form, it remained liable for confiscation under the Act. The Tribunal upheld the applicability of the statutory presumption under Section 123 in cases involving goods like gold, emphasizing the burden of proof on the possessor to establish the goods were not smuggled.
5. The appellants sought the option of redemption for the seized gold, which was denied by the Tribunal due to the gold being confirmed as smuggled. The judgment confirmed the impugned order and dismissed the appeals, citing the clear proof of the gold's foreign origin justifying its confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
Additional Judgment:
In Customs Appeal Nos. 223 and 224 of 1985(MAS), similar circumstances led to the dismissal of the appeals based on the reasoning provided in the main judgment regarding the seizure and confiscation of gold believed to be of foreign origin.
-
1986 (7) TMI 279
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 for attempting illegal export of hashish.
2. Evidence connecting the appellant with the illegal export and the quantum of penalty imposed.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962
The appeal was against the Order of the Collector of Customs imposing a penalty on the appellant for attempting to export hashish illegally. The consignment of frozen fish was found to contain hashish concealed within it, which led to the seizure of the goods. The appellant was allegedly connected to the exporters, M/s. Nigil Exports, and was implicated in the illegal export based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant denied any association with the exporters and claimed mistaken identity. However, witness statements, including those of the van driver and cleaner, linked the appellant to the transportation and unloading of tea chests containing hashish at the cold storage of Nigil Exports. The evidence established the appellant's connection with the exporters and the illegal export attempt.
Issue 2: Evidence connecting the appellant with the illegal export and quantum of penalty
The appellant's defense of mistaken identity was refuted by witness statements identifying him at the scene of the crime. The tribunal noted that circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's association with the exporters and the transportation of tea chests containing hashish, pointed towards his guilt. The tribunal referred to legal precedent emphasizing the significance of false denials in determining guilt in customs cases. Despite the appellant's plea for a reduction in the penalty, the tribunal upheld the penalty of Rs. 50,000 considering the value of the goods involved, the nature of the offense, and the appellant's role in the illegal export. The tribunal concluded that the charge against the appellant was sustainable in law, confirming the penalty imposed.
In conclusion, the tribunal found the appellant complicit in the illegal export of hashish based on the evidence presented, rejecting the defense of mistaken identity. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate given the seriousness of the offense and the appellant's involvement. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1986 (7) TMI 275
Issues:
1. Whether the demand made on the appellant invoking the extended period of limitation is legally valid.
2. Whether the appellant is guilty of suppression of facts within the meaning of Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Whether the Department had knowledge of the raw materials used by the appellant in the manufacture of finished products.
Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a demand raised on the appellant for a duty amount due for clearances between June 1980 to August 1982. The key issue was the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act. Both the original authority and the lower appellate authority found the appellant guilty of suppression of facts related to raw materials used in manufacturing excisable goods. The Department claimed that the appellant cleared goods without paying duty under an exemption notification, although certain raw materials were excluded from this exemption. The appellant argued that the Department's claim was time-barred as they had knowledge of the raw materials used. The Tribunal found that the Department's claim was barred by limitation, as the raw materials register and audit report indicated the Department's knowledge of the raw materials used.
2. The appellant contended that the Department knew about the raw materials used in manufacturing finished products, as evidenced by the raw materials register and audit report. The Department argued that the appellant suppressed facts by not furnishing details of principal raw materials in the classification list, as required under Rule 173D. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellant's use of raw materials was known to the Department, and therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts under Section 11A(1) was not legally tenable. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
3. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant failed to furnish information regarding principal raw materials as required under Rule 173D, indicating suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal noted that the obligation to provide such information arises only if required by the Collector, and in this case, no such requirement was made. The Tribunal found that the Department had knowledge of the raw materials used by the appellant, as evidenced by the raw materials register and audit report. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Department's claim based on suppression of facts was not valid, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
........
|
9911796707
