|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there has been a mis-statement, in so far as there has been a failure to include the quantity of Rapidogens manufactured during the relevant period in the statement furnished alongwith the classification list as well as the declaration appended thereto?
Held that:- Considering the appellant's case that he thought bona fide that he need not include the value of the Rapidogens in his declaration, for the reason that the said product was fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 180/61, dated November 23, 1961 it is also brought to our notice that on the date of filing of his declaration, two High Courts had taken the view that the goods exempted from duty are not includible within the definition of `excisable goods' as defined in clause (d) of Section 2. No doubt, two other High Courts had taken a contrary view. The appellant's factory is in the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court had not taken a view one way or the other.
In the above circumstances and because the facts establish that the mis-statement of facts in the declaration filed by the appellant - or the suppression of facts therein, as the case may be - cannot be called wilful, the appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ring to the parties, whereas the petitioners may suffer irreversible injury in the event of denial of opportunity to them to substantiate their claim. 4. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 9-11-1990 communicated to the petitioner vide covering letter dated 7-2-1991 received by them on 11-2-1991 is hereby quashed. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur is directed to re-admit the application for refund to its original number and dispose it of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the body of this judgment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to furnish a certified copy of this judgment and the documents they want to rely upon before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Saharanpur within a month from today. 5. Let a certified copy of this judgment is supplied to the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week.
-
1994 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction at show cause notice stage - Existence of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... ority in response to the show cause notice, which shall decide it in accordance with the Act and Rules. 6.Learned counsel for the petitioner then urged, since the seizure has been made in January, 1994 and the matter is pending since long he may be permitted to raise apart from the aforesaid grounds the ground to decide some of the issues as preliminary issues, we leave the matter on the said authority to decide whether the question raised by the petitioner should be preliminary issue or not and the petitioner is at liberty to raise such issues as he deems just and proper before the said authority to be treated as a preliminary issue. It is for the authority to decide in case whether it is or it is not prejudicial to the revenue, to treat such issues if it goes to the root of the matter as a preliminary issue. 7.In view of the aforesaid, we decline to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8.With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Financial hardship ... ... ... ... ..... ies have come to the Court alleging prejudice, inconvenience or harm and that prima facie case has been shown. There can be and there are no hard and fast rules. But prudence, discretion and circumspection are called for. There are several other vital considerations apart from the existence of a prima facie case. There is the question of balance of convenience. There is the question of irreparable injury. There is the question of public interest. There are many such factors worthy of consideration. We often wonder why in the case indirect taxation where the burden has already been passed on to the consumer, any interim relief should at all be given to the manufacturer, dealer and the like . 22.In the result, we find no merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. We, however, direct that the period of 2 months granted by the learned single Judge, for making the deposit, which has already expired, shall stand extended by another period of four weeks from today. No costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Order - Implementation of - Stay ... ... ... ... ..... he has no information regarding any one staying operation of the aforesaid order by any higher authority. 8.In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above and in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier it must be held that, since there is no order of stay of operation of the order dated 8th April, 1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the respondents are bound to carry out the aforesaid order. 9.Accordingly I direct the Customs Authorities to proceed in terms of the order dated 8th April, 1994 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the goods be released within two weeks from the date of communication of this order upon payment of usual customs duty. 10.Since no affidavit has been filed by the Respondents, the allegations made in the petition are not admitted by the Respondent. 11.There will be no order as to costs. 12.All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1994 (9) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Prosecution - Evidence - Recording of - Principle of finality ... ... ... ... ..... soever is caused. On the other hand, he submits that serious damage would be done to the prosecution case if the learned Magistrate had not granted the application. 5.I am unable to uphold these submissions. I have to take cognizance of the fact that this trial had been dragged on for 6 years and that P.W. 2 had been examined earlier. It is not as though some witness who was not earlier available had become available and that, therefore, the prosecution requested that they be allowed to produce that evidence. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is justified in objecting to the reopening of the trial after the prosecution has closed its case. 6.Having regard to the position in law, the order dated 31-1-1994 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The interim stay stands vacated and it is directed that the trial court shall take up the trial from the point at which it was stayed and complete the same expeditiously. The petition stands disposed of.
-
1994 (9) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy no absolute bar ... ... ... ... ..... he writ petition. On 4-4-1994 one last opportunity of four weeks was granted with a mention that no further adjournment will be granted. Mr. Choudhary was granted eight weeks time to file reply on 9-5-1994. Ultimately on 8-7-1994 the Court observed that No reply inspite of seeking time has been filed. Therefore, the reply is closed. These orders passed by single Bench as well as by Division Benchs make it clear that the tendency of the other side of not filing reply despite numberless opportunities taken by them, needs immediate attention by the authorities concerned, so as to give proper assistance to the Court in disposal of the case within a reasonable time. 13.In view of what we have discussed above, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Chief Justice and the special appeals deserve to be dismissed. Consequently, these special appeals have no force, and the same are hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent No. 2.
-
1994 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... .R. No. 1242/88 the show cause notice is at Annexure-I dated 8-4-1987. Annexure-I shows that they wanted to re-determine the value of goods under Section 4(2) of the Act though it is admitted that there are factory gate sales. As this cannot be done this show cause notice stands quashed. Accordingly all the Civil Rules are allowed as indicated above. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Before I part with the record I would like to state one thing. The respondents wanted to urge that they have issued the show cause notice by invoking the power under Section 11A(1) of the Act. Mr. Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wanted to urge that even though this power cannot be exercised by invoking the power under Section 11A(1) of the Act. I have decided the matter by holding that the value is to be assessed under Section 4(I)(a) of the Act, this aspect of the matter has not been considered and also I did not hear the respondents on this aspect of the matter.
-
1994 (9) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Revision application - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ion application was on account of unavoidable circumstances. The learned counsel submitted that the officer in-charge of filing the proceedings had suddenly resigned from employment and that led to the delay in filing the revision application. Though we are not impressed by the claim made by the petitioners, in our judgment, it would be appropriate to give an opportunity to agitate their claim on merits in the revision application. As we are inclined to show indulgence to the petitioners, it is necessary that the petitioners shall pay the costs of this petition as condition precedent to respondents. 3. Accordingly, petition succeeds and interim order dated November 30, 1993 passed by Government of India, Ministry of Finance and copy of which is annexed as Exh. G to the petition, is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the revisional authority for hearing and final disposal on merits. The petitioners shall pay the costs of the respondents as condition precedent.
-
1994 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Show cause notice - Service - Seizure - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t be quashed on the ground that the show cause notice under Section 110(2) of the Act has been served beyond the period of limitation, as mentioned in Section 110(2) of the Act. 25.For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitioners are entitled to release of the goods seized. Accordingly, I issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over possession and custody of the seized goods to the writ petitioners within a fortnight from this date positively on payment of customs duty, as assessed by the customs authorities, and to issue requisite detention certificate acceptable to the Airport Authorities in respect of demurrage and other Airport charges and expenses incurred in respect of the subject imported goods from the date of filing of the Bill of Entry till the actual release thereof. 26.Accordingly, the writ application is allowed in part and there will be no order as to costs. 27.All parties are to act on xerox signed copy of this judgment upon usual undertaking.
-
1994 (9) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appeal by department - Natural justice - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... respondent who will be in a better position to appreciate the entire materials on record, being the original authority and pass appropriate orders. This submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents stating in such an event, the second respondent also can consider the entire material on record having the power even to hold further enquiry and to record additional evidence, if necessary and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. I am inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard. 12.In the result, for the reasons stated and discussion made above, I pass the following order The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the second respondent dated 8-4-1994 passed in A.No. 5/94 (Order in Appeal 14/94) is quashed. The case is remitted to the second respondent for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No Costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund/Adjustment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... il rate of duty for the period in question which falls within the said period on copper wire rods are exempted from excise duty. The said notification is covering the retrospective period including the period for which the petitioners made the challenge and hence the imposition of duty by the respondents would be non est and illegal. In view of this, to which the learned counsel for the respondents has not contested as no excise duty is leviable, and in case any excise duty has been levied or any amount the petitioners have deposited towards the same earlier by virtue of the interim order passed by this court, the petitioners may make an application before the authority concerned for the refund/adjustment of the said amount in accordance with law. In case such application is made the said authority will pass appropriate order on the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observations the present petition stands allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... t to impose so as to safeguard the interest of the revenue. 5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Collector (Appeals) has laid much emphasis on the merits of the appeal and has not considered at all the question of hardship claimed by the petitioner in his petition before him. The Collector (Appeals) has therefore, not disposed of the petitioner s application for waiver under the aforesaid proviso in a right manner and the important question of hardship to the appellant has not been dealt with at all. Therefore, this order cannot be sustained and the Collector should decide the question of waiver afresh. 6. For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-7-1994 is set aside and the Collector (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad is directed to dispose of the petitioner s application for waiver afresh after giving the petitioner/appellant a proper opportunity of hearing. 7. Parties shall bear of their own costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ich as mentioned before runs into several pages, that the writ petitioners had misrepresented the manufacturing process of the Coal Tar Pitch imported by them to get the benefit of a lower rate of duty or tax. 39.Having regard to the view I have taken, it is not really necessary to go into the other question raised by Mr. Ginwala that the matter had been prejudged by the Customs authorities, though, there is sufficient material in the show cause notice in support of Mr. Ginwala s contention. 40.The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notice to show cause dated 23rd April, 1992, being Annexure A to the writ petition, and the proceedings initiated on the basis thereof, are hereby quashed. 41.There will be no order as to costs. 42.On the prayer made on behalf of the respondents, there will be a stay of this order for a period of four weeks from date. 43.All parties, are to act on a xerox signed copy of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking.
-
1994 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a duty of excise was validly levied on "PVC compound" produced by the appellant from out of the duty paid PVC resin?
Held that:- "Marketability" is a decisive test for dutiability. It only means "saleable", or "suitable for sale". It need not be in fact, "marketed". The article should be capable of being sold or being sold, to consumers in the market, as it is - without anything more. The Appellate Tribunal has not adverted to the above vital aspects nor has it entered a finding that the PVC compound (Granules) is a "marketable product" as understood in law. The Appellate Tribunal was swayed by the fact that the conversion of PVC resin into PVC compound by the process employed by the appellants amounts to "manufacture" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and that by itself will justify the levy of duty. In our view, this is a palpable error committed by the Tribunal. In the absence of a finding, that the goods are "marketable" i.e. saleable or suitable for sale, we hold that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is infirm. It should be set aside and we hereby do so. We order a remit of the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the appeal afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
-
1994 (9) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the metal screw cap put on the bottle of the Horlicks is no part of the manufacturing process, because the Horlicks itself is a finished product and ready for consumption when it reaches the bottling plant?
Held that:- When Item IB under which the product falls says, prepared or preserved foods put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale, then for becoming an excisable article, Horlicks must be put in containers, ready for sale. The screw cap shall be deemed to be component part of Horlicks and Notification No. 201/79-C.E. aforesaid shall be applicable wherein the Central Government exempted all excisable goods on which duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule of the Act had been used as raw material or component parts, from so much of the duty of the excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Whether `Throw Away Inserts' manufactured by the appellants fall in the category of Tool Tips or Tools?
Held that:- It is not the case of the appellant that its products are mounted on tools. The composition of its product is same as mentioned in Tariff Item 62. In shape or form it is not different from a Tool Tip, except that it has multiple cutting edges. Its function is the same as that of a Tool Tip. The fact that it is detachable and has to be thrown away after use, will not change its basic character or function. Appeal dismised
-
1994 (9) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Limitation for extended period - `Intent to evade payment of duty' - Words and phrases - Evasion of duty - Inference
-
1994 (9) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant fall in clause (a) as if it can be classified with reference to (a) then clauses (b) and (c) would not apply?
Held that:- On the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector, the goods produced by the appellant which are component part of the flow meter specifically fall in Heading No. 90.24. They may also fall in Heading No.90.26 but that being more general entry preference should have been given to the entry 90.24 as the goods satisfy most specific description of being flow meter. The Tribunal or the appellate authority without adverting to it applied clause (c) and levied duty under 90.26 as it was a latter heading. But clause (c) would apply only if clauses (a) and (b) do not apply. Since the goods manufactured by the appellant satisfied the specific description of Tariff Heading 90.24 being a flow meter, the Tribunal committed an error of law in classifying it under Tariff Heading 90.26 as it was a latter item under the classification list. Appeal allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the particle boards manufactured by appellant are `unveneered particle boards' within the meaning of Item No. 6 of the table appended to the Notification No. 55 of 1979, and therefore, totally exempt from duty?
Held that:- The words `unveneered particle boards' in Item-6 of the table appended to the Exemption Notification cannot and do not take in melamine faced particle boards. Indeed, the learned counsel for the Revenue contends, and in our opinion rightly, that the said entry does not admit of any doubt, that it is clear and specific and that it covers only unveneered particle boards and nothing else. Appeal dismissed.The appellant has to pay the arrears of duty due according to law.
....
|
