Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 303 Records

• 1995 (9) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
  

  Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ns will be filed before December 31, 1995. The Director General, thereafter, should give hearing to the company and pass a speaking order. The Company will not be entitled to claim any benefit whatsoever from the grant of certificate till the final determination by the Director General. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated December 19, 1990 is set aside. The Company is directed to file the objection to the notice given by the Director General by the end of December 1995. The Director General thereafter to give the hearing to the company and pass a speaking order. The department is directed not to make any recoveries on the basis of the cancellation before passing any order by the Director General. It is made clear that any finding or observation made by the learned single Judge should not be taken into consideration by the Director General while adjudicating the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... refund application in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 7.Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed and while upholding the judgment of the learned single judge, the operative portion of the order is modified as follows The proceedings are remitted back to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Cantonment Division, Bangalore, or any equivalent officer as is at present nominated to deal with the refund application. The concerned officer should ascertain the amount of refund payable to the company within a period of three months from the date of receipt to the order and pass an appropriate order as prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act. In case the officer comes to the conclusion that the amount is required to be refunded to the company then the said refund shall be made within a period of two weeks from the date of the order. In the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Marketability of Burner Fuel Oil captively consumed by the appellant for heating purposes in its own refinery - Held that:- Fuel oils can solidify under storage conditions and, therefore, it is usual to specify a pour point for the oil. The fact that it has to be kept under certain temperatures to remain in liquid form, contends Counsel for the Revenue, does not make it other than fuel oil. But even from these notes we find that fuel oil or furnace oil consists of residues which are primarily used in steam boilers in power and industrial plants and are distinguished from commercial fuel oils which are usually blended with other petroleum fractions. The question is one of fact and from what is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant we are inclined to think that the Revenue has not been able to show that the residue is marketable as understood in the decisions referred to hereinbefore. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 82 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ions through job work. The goods so produced is stated to be exigible to excise duty under T.I. 68 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, by Notification No. 119/75, dated April 30, 1975, job work was exempted from the levy. The Explanation to the notification defined job work to cover such items of work where the article is supplied to a job worker for manufacture and the job worker returns it to the supplier after manufacture by charging for job work only. Since there is no positive finding on the question whether through job work the character of the goods supplied changes, we are compelled to remit the matters to the authority the Respondent No. 1 so that it may reach a finding of fact and decide the case in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. and Ors. As considerable time has elapsed, the matter may be expedited. 2. The appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 81 - SC ORDER
  

  Refund - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... The appeal is dismissed. So far as the refund is concerned, it is open to the parties to raise such contentions as are open to them in law, including the 1991 amendment to the Central Excise Act. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the respondent says that the plea now sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that Refund Application is barred by time cannot be permitted to be raised. 2. In view of the said statement of the learned Counsel, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition. We again observe that so far as the refund is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to raise such contentions as are open to him in law including the 1991 Amendment to the Central Excise Act.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 80 - SC ORDER
  

  Valuation (Customs)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... was air lifted instead of transporting by sea as was originally agreed upon because of the urgent requirement of the said medicine in India. The Tribunal having noticed that it was in the special circumstance that the goods which were originally planned to be brought by sea had to be air lifted it proceeded on the premise that ordinarily such goods were brought by sea and the value thereof had to be determined at the price at which such or like goods were ordinarily sold or offered for sale. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that they were ordinarily sold or offered for sale after including the sea freight and not air freight and on that finding of fact it came to the conclusion that the value of the goods had to be determined by adding sea freight and not air freight thereto. In the circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of fact on the basis of which the ultimate conclusion was reached. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Penalty - mens rea

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... strength of that form. It was the assessee who detected the mistake much later when the department was informed about it. As already stated the provisions under discussion are not intended to penalise an honest assessee for a bona fide mistake. It is not mandatory that penalty must be levied in every case of default. It has been observed above that law enjoins discretion to the assessing authority in these matters. This discretion, like other judicial discretions, will have to be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense and sound judgment. 18.In view of the above discussion, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal in upholding the imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. On the facts and circumstances of the case no case for penalty was made out either on facts or in law. The Sales Tax Tribunal committed an error of law in taking the view otherwise. 19.In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
  

  Prosecution - Penalty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ablished for want of evidence, but notwithstanding that, the learned Magistrate had proceeded to take cognizance of the offence. 3. In my opinion, no cognizance could have been taken at the very threshold since the alleged act, admittedly even if proved, amounted to an offence, punishable under Section 5 of the said Act and cognizance thereof could have been taken only if a complaint had been brought before the Court in writing made by an officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order. No such writing has been pointed out. If such mandatory requirements are provided in the Act, it is incumbent on the Trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the said requirement has been complied with before taking cognizance of the offence. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The accused are discharged. This petition and application stand disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... he two aspects in details whether the petitioner has been able to make out a(1) prima facie case and whether the petitioner is going to suffer undue hardship or(2) not. The respondent which is discharging judicial function, is expected to pass a reasoned and detailed order. 7.The matter is, therefore, remanded back to the respondent for considering the petitioner s application afresh on merits and then to pass a detailed order about the prima facie case of the petitioner as also about undue hardship that the petitioner may suffer, if stay is not granted. It is also expected that the respondents shall decide the appeal filed under Section 35F of the Act, as expeditiously as is possible. 8.Consequently the order communicated through Telegram Ann. P. 6, dated 8-9-1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. Petition is disposed of finally with no order as to costs. C.C. on payment.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Cellulose Acetate Scrap

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 982 when Explanation-III was added to Tariff Item 15A. The assessee s contention that the goods could not be classified under Tariff Item 15A(1) was accepted by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Since Tariff Item 15A(1) or (2) did not cover this scrap in question, the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal were right in reaching the conclusion that the goods in question were liable to be classified under Tariff Item 68. We have in Civil Appeal Nos. 1746-52/88 upheld the contention of the respondent in this behalf and affirmed the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. The additional duty could, therefore, be recovered on the premise that the goods in question were chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 68 and not 15A(1) or (2). The excise duty was, therefore, directed to be refunded by the Collector (Appeals) and we see no infirmity in that direction. We, therefore, see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Show cause notice - "Giving" of - Meaning - Seizure - Interpretation of statute

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... otice, which have no bearing with the present case. In Payal Ashok Kumar Jindal v. Captain Ashoke Kumar Jindal reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 19 the Supreme Court was dealing with service of a notice by family court, which too has no bearing. In the case reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 509 a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court was dealing with a case under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, but overlooked the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act which was made applicable to F.E.R.A. by Section 67 thereof. 43.In that view of the matter, we set aside the order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition inasmuch as admittedly the notice was sent by registered post within six months from the date of seizure. 44.We, however, direct that the show cause notice will be proceeded with and appropriate opportunity of hearing should be given to the respondents/writ petitioners as they are entitled to in law. 45.No order as to costs. 46. Per Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. . - I agree.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s by 31-3-1987. The Collector will refund forthwith the said amount to the appellants as also the sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- paid under the earlier order dated 25-3-1986 in the event the appeal succeeds. 6.We have gone through this order and also the relevant law. In our view, the appellant should move an application before the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of the amount already deposited by way of customs duty. If such an application is made, the Assistant Collector of Customs shall dispose of the same within a period of 2 months from the date of moving of such application after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and taking such evidence as may be necessary. If need not be said that the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs will be a reasoned order. 7.There will be no order as to costs. 8.All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment and order counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court on the usual undertaking.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 73 - SC ORDER
  

  Appeal to Supreme Court against CEGAT order

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t has commenced the production from 3-11-1975. Admittedly, both these documents were not filed before the Tribunal. We cannot look into the documents which have not been filed before the Tribunal and particularly when one of them has been issued subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal. It is open to the appellant to approach the Tribunal and ask for reconsideration of its orders in the light of the said documents, if he is so advised, according to law. 2. The appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Manufacture - Pan Masala - Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... in the RESUME of the submissions made on behalf of petitioners except the points in issue pressed during the course of arguments and dealt with above. 49.In view of the premises aforesaid on the facts and in the circumstances of these petitions, we are of the considered opinion that the process of preparing Pan Masala and other products of like nature involved in these petitions, amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act as it stood before the year 1985 and these products were not exempted from payment of excise duty in terms of Notifications dated 1-3-1970 and 1-3-1975, therefore, for the reasons given above these products were excisable under the Act, consequently, impugned proceedings including search and seizure conducted by the excise authorities cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, or without jurisdiction or illegal. In the result all the aforesaid writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs, being devoid of merits.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Adjudication - Transfer

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... by the Central Excise Collector, Bombay. In any case, we have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners at length and we are of the view that in this case the transfer of cases to the centralised authority viz. the Collector of Delhi, was for administrative purpose and reasons. 33.In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs. Interim reliefs stands vacated. 34.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the interim relief granted by the Court be continued for eight weeks. In our view, this prayer requires to be rejected mainly because in three cases decided by three different High Courts, no stay was granted since the year 1988-90. Further, with regard to the third matter of the petitioners, the Division Bench of this Court has permitted the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Delhi to decide that matter and that matter is already decided. Hence the prayer is rejected. 35.Issuance of certified copy of this judgment is expedited.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
  

  Seized goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... from the date of seizure of goods. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, but these allegations are not denied. Earlier when the matter came up before this Court, on the request of counsel for the respondents we granted further one week time to file supplementary counter affidavit for replying paragraphs 11 and 12 of the writ petition. Despite the time being granted, no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed. We, therefore, in the absence of supplementary counter affidavit accept the version of the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Since no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner s goods seized by the respondents is liable to be released in favour of the petitioner. We, accordingly, quash the order of seizure dated 19-3-1990. We further direct the respondents to release the seized goods to the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is allowed.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
  

  Prosecution - Tribunal's decision in same case - Effect on prosecution

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e prosecution is liable to be quashed. In the decision in Madras Spinners Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1993 (1) KLT 482 the learned single Judge of this Court took the view that so long as the decision of the Tribunal is in force the criminal court cannot come to a contrary conclusion, as the effect of the decision of the Tribunal is to take away the very basis of the prosecution, the prosecution is liable to be quashed, safeguarding the right of the revenue to file fresh complaint in case the order of the Tribunal is set aside. It is not disputed by the counsel for the respondent that the order of the Tribunal has become final as no appeal is filed against the said order. In view of the order of the Tribunal exonerating the petitioner, I am of the view that the proceedings against the petitioner in the above C.C. No. 78/90, on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam, has to be quashed. Accordingly they are quashed.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
  

  Adjudication - Confiscation of seized goods

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ould be seized again on the strength of a second notice. Supreme Court has, in the decision referred to by the learned single judge Asst. Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra - 1971 (1) S.C.C. 697 made a passing observation that Section 124 does not lay down any period within which notice is required and the period laid down in Section 110(2) affects only the seizure of the goods and not the validity of notice. The view that Section 124 is independent of Section 110 of the Customs Act has been adopted by the other High Courts (vide The Collector of Customs and Central Excise v. Amruthalakshmi - AIR 1975 Madras 43 M/s Mohanlal Devdanbhai v. M.P. Mondkar - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (SC) AIR 1977 Bombay 320) Hemant Bahadur Lama v. Union of India - 1982 Cri. L.J. 2227 and Shah Chagnlal Gianmalji v. Union of India - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 428 (Delhi)). 11.The result is, petitioners cannot get the orders quashed on either of the grounds. We, therefore, dismiss their Original Petition.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Customs - Clearance of imported goods - Delay by department not desirable

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ment of Electronics has sought the release of the goods. The respondents should not, ignoring all these factors, refuse release only on this ground that they have the power to confiscate. 15.Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a detailed representation will be filed to the respondents tomorrow supplementing the letters already sent to the respondents. If such a representation is given for release of the goods, respondents shall consider and dispose of the same within five days and in any case on or before 25th September, after due consideration to all rele- vant matters. It will be open to the respondents to obtain such bonds/ guarantee/undertakings in addition to the duty as a condition for release of the goods. 16.Respondents shall complete the investigation in one week as undertaken by them and send a show cause notice if there are any violations by 26-9-1995. Adjudication shall be completed within four weeks thereafter. Petition is disposed of with these directions.

  ---

• 1995 (9) TMI 66 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r opinion, the grievance made on behalf of the appellant is justified. 2. In case the Tribunal does not find any difficulty in recording a finding on merits, it is only appropriate that it should decide the entire matter itself instead of remanding the matter to the Collector after recording a finding on merits. 3. In view of the fact that the Tribunal considered the evidence sufficient to record a finding on merits, it is appropriate that the Tribunal itself decides the entire appeal and the cross-objections on merits instead of making a remand to the Collector. 4. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal made in the appeal and the cross-objections filed therein, is set aside. The Tribunal should decide the appeal and the cross-objections afresh on merits after hearing both sides. 5. In view of the common request made before us for an early decision in this matter, we request the Tribunal to hear and dispose of this matter as early as possible.

  ---

1 ....8910111213141516