Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 301 to 320 of 2880 Records

• 1984 (11) TMI 284
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the payment of Rs. 1,23,240 by the appellant to captains and other officers of foreign vessels contravenes section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
  2. Whether captains of foreign ships can be considered as persons resident in India during their stay at Indian ports.
  3. Whether the Exchange Control Manual of the Reserve Bank of India can be referred to for defining "resident outside India."
  4. Whether the payment of "hat money" is an accepted international trade practice and thus exempt from the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
  5. Whether the fine of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the appellant is excessive.
  6. Whether the payment of "hat money" without the Reserve Bank's permission affects Indian trade and economy.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Contravention of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947:
  The court held that the appellant company made payments totaling Rs. 1,23,240 to captains of foreign vessels without the necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India, thereby contravening section 5(1)(a) of the Act. The section prohibits any person in India from making payments to persons resident outside India without the Reserve Bank's permission.
  
  2. Residency Status of Foreign Ship Captains:
  The court rejected the appellant's argument that captains of foreign ships should be considered residents of India because their ships were berthed at Indian ports at the time of payment. The court emphasized that simply berthing at an Indian port does not change the residency status of these captains, who remain residents outside India. The court referred to the Reserve Bank of India's Exchange Controls Manual, which states that persons normally resident outside India, including Indian citizens who have made their permanent homes abroad, are considered residents outside India even during their visits to India.
  
  3. Reference to the Exchange Control Manual:
  The court acknowledged that the Exchange Control Manual does not have the force of law but serves as a guide. However, in the absence of a statutory definition of "resident outside India," the court found it appropriate to refer to the Manual. The court held that foreign citizens who come to India for a short stay cannot be treated as residents in India simply because they are on Indian soil at the time of payment.
  
  4. Payment of "Hat Money" as an International Trade Practice:
  The appellant argued that the payment of "hat money" is a normal and accepted international trade practice in the shipping business. The court acknowledged this practice but held that once regulations are in place restricting such payments, the practice cannot override the law. The court emphasized that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act aims to conserve foreign exchange, and any payment without the Reserve Bank's permission contravenes the Act.
  
  5. Fine of Rs. 25,000:
  The court found that the fine of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Director of Enforcement was not excessive. Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, prescribes a penalty not exceeding three times the foreign exchange involved or Rs. 5,000, whichever is more. Given that the foreign exchange involved was Rs. 1,23,240, the fine could have been much higher. Therefore, the court held that the fine was reasonable and proportionate to the offence committed.
  
  6. Impact on Indian Trade and Economy:
  The appellant argued that prohibiting the payment of "hat money" would adversely affect Indian trade and economy. The court dismissed this argument, stating that there is no absolute bar on such payments under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Firms can seek prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India for such payments. If the Reserve Bank is convinced that prohibiting such payments would harm Indian trade, it would allow them. Therefore, the court found this argument to be without merit.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's payments to foreign ship captains without the Reserve Bank's permission contravened section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the residency status of the captains, the relevance of the Exchange Control Manual, the practice of paying "hat money," the reasonableness of the fine, and the impact on Indian trade and economy. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 283
  
  Issues:
  - Petition for winding up under sections 439(5), 433(c) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 due to the company not carrying on business for more than a year and losing its substratum.
  
  Analysis:
  The petition for winding up was filed by the Registrar of Companies under sections 439(5), 433(c) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956 against a company, alleging that the company had not been conducting business for over a year and had lost its substratum. The company, incorporated in Delhi, later shifted its registered office to Rajasthan. The company's main objective was to take over agricultural activities from another entity and engage in farming and horticultural activities. The petitioner contended that the company had not filed returns since June 30, 1979, indicating a lack of business activity. The Regional Director of the Company Law Board sanctioned the petition for winding up after finding the company's explanation unsatisfactory.
  
  The company, in response, argued that it had been carrying on business regularly, citing the filing of balance-sheets and profit and loss accounts for multiple years. The company highlighted the nomination of directors by its holding company and the subsequent changes in the board of directors. The new management submitted financial documents for the years ending June 30, 1980, 1981, and 1982, showing business operations.
  
  The petitioner's counsel argued that the company had not been conducting substantial business, evidenced by minimal expenditures and increasing losses over the years. The counsel contended that the company's substratum had disappeared due to lack of business activity, justifying winding up under sections 433(c) and (f) of the Act. Conversely, the company's counsel argued that the company had generated income from farm produce sales, and its assets exceeded liabilities, negating the claim of losing substratum.
  
  The judge analyzed the case under sections 433(c) and (f) of the Act. Regarding section 433(c), the judge found that the company had not suspended business for over a year based on filed returns and the new management's efforts. Under section 433(f), the judge determined that the company had not substantially failed in its objectives, could operate without incurring losses, and had sufficient assets to cover liabilities. Consequently, the judge dismissed the petition for winding up, ruling that neither ground for winding up was established, and no costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 282
  
  Issues:
  - Admission of appeal as a matter of routine
  - Existence of a bona fide dispute regarding payment of interest
  - Reliability of a footnote entry in invoices
  - Consideration of general custom of trade for interest payment
  - Filing of a second petition for winding up after dismissal of the earlier petition
  
  Admission of Appeal:
  The appellant contended that the appeal should be admitted as a routine matter, but this argument was rejected citing a Division Bench judgment. The court observed that notice of motion was issued, and both parties were heard extensively. The court intended to address all raised points.
  
  Bona Fide Dispute on Interest Payment:
  The appellant claimed a bona fide dispute existed on interest payment. However, the court found no merit in this contention. The appellant had paid the principal amount, and the invoices clearly stated the liability to pay interest if not paid by a specified date. The court noted that the appellant did not deny the interest liability previously, and the dispute raised lacked substance.
  
  Reliability of Footnote Entry:
  The appellant argued that a footnote entry in the invoices, without the appellant's signature, should not be relied upon for interest payment. While citing a single Bench judgment, the court found this argument irrelevant as other records confirmed the appellant's awareness of the interest obligation. The court concluded that the appellant's plea of non-payment of interest lacked substance.
  
  Consideration of General Custom of Trade:
  The court acknowledged the appellant's objection to relying on the general custom of trade for interest payment due to lack of pleadings or proof. Despite this, the court emphasized that this factor did not impact the finding that the appellant was liable to pay interest based on other evidence.
  
  Filing of Second Petition for Winding Up:
  The appellant contended that filing a second winding-up petition after the dismissal of the earlier one was improper. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the plea was not raised earlier and that the prior petition was dismissed due to payment, making the second petition valid.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 260
  
  Issues: Prosecution under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 for failure to furnish balance-sheet and profit and loss account.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involved a prosecution under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 against a company and its directors for not submitting the balance-sheet and profit and loss account to the Registrar of Companies. The defense argued that the annual general meeting for the relevant year was held within the prescribed time frame, and the adjourned meeting where the financial documents were presented was a continuation of the initial meeting held within 15 months as required by section 166 of the Act. The prosecution contended that the documents should have been filed within 30 days of the annual general meeting, which was not done in this case.
  
  The court referred to previous judgments to interpret the legal provisions. It cited the case of M. D. Mundra v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, which established that an adjourned annual general meeting is considered a continuation of the initial meeting. Additionally, the court relied on the case of Sudhir Kumar Seal v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, which allowed for adjournment of the meeting to present the accounts. Another case, Bejoy Kumar Karnani v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, emphasized the need to complete the annual general meeting within the statutory period unless extended by the Registrar under section 166(1) of the Act.
  
  After considering the precedents, the court concluded that the annual general meeting was initially held on time and the adjourned meeting fell within the 15-month period mandated by section 166(1) of the Act. As the balance-sheet and profit and loss account were submitted to the Registrar of Companies promptly after the meeting, the court found no violation of section 220(1) of the Act. Consequently, the prosecution was deemed not maintainable, and the application to quash the proceedings was granted.
  
  In a concurring opinion, Justice Sankar Bhattacharyya agreed with the decision to allow the application and quash the prosecution proceedings.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 259
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the transaction between the company and respondent No. 1.
  2. Application of the law of limitation.
  3. Estoppel due to acceptance of rent by the official liquidator.
  4. Bona fides of the transaction.
  5. Just and equitable considerations for granting relief to the official liquidator.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of the Transaction:
  The official liquidator sought a declaration that the transaction between respondent No. 1 and the company, entered into after the filing of the winding-up petition, is void u/s 536(2) of the Companies Act. The court held that since the agreement was executed after the filing of the winding-up petition, the transaction is void by statute, and the official liquidator is entitled to claim possession of the premises.
  
  2. Application of the Law of Limitation:
  Respondent No. 1 contended that the official liquidator's application is barred by Article 59 of the Limitation Act. The court rejected this contention, stating that u/s 536(2) of the Companies Act, the transaction is deemed void by statute, and there is no need for a declaration. Even if a declaration was sought, the limitation period would be twelve years, making the application timely.
  
  3. Estoppel Due to Acceptance of Rent:
  Respondent No. 1 argued that the official liquidator is estopped from claiming the transaction is void because he accepted rent. The court found that the acceptance of rent by the official liquidator, even without prejudice, cannot validate a void transaction. Therefore, this contention was also rejected.
  
  4. Bona Fides of the Transaction:
  Respondent No. 1 claimed the transaction was bona fide, as he had spent considerable money on the premises and had been in possession since the agreement. The court held that the question is not about the bona fides of respondent No. 1 but whether the transaction was in the interest of the company's business or its creditors. Since the transaction did not meet this criterion, the argument failed.
  
  5. Just and Equitable Considerations:
  Respondent No. 1 argued that it would not be just and equitable to grant relief to the official liquidator due to the delay and his investments in the premises. The court emphasized that the primary consideration is whether the transaction was in the interest of the company or its creditors. Since it was not, the court granted relief to the official liquidator.
  
  Conclusion:
  The judge's summons was made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b), directing respondent No. 1 to hand over possession of the premises to the official liquidator. Respondent No. 1's submissions for alternative reliefs were rejected, except for granting an eight-week period to vacate the premises.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 258
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  2. Stay of criminal proceedings pending the decision of the declaratory suit.
  3. Jurisdiction of the criminal court to entertain the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  4. Suppression of facts by the petitioner in the present petition.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956:
  
  The primary issue in this case was whether Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, is ultra vires the legislative competence of Parliament as it applies to the immovable property of a company. The petitioner contended that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to legislate regarding immovable property of a company situated within a State, arguing that such legislation falls under entry 18, List II-State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The petitioner relied on the decision in *Elliot Wand and Hill P. Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation [1981] Bom. CR 590*, where it was held that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was outside the legislative competence of Parliament.
  
  The court, however, rejected this contention, stating that Parliament is competent to legislate in respect of companies and their affairs under entries 43 and 44 of List I-Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Section 630 of the Companies Act deals with the wrongful withholding of property by employees of a company, which falls within the affairs of a company. The court emphasized the principle of "pith and substance" and held that the provisions of Section 630 could not be struck down for want of legislative competence merely because they slightly transgress the area of immovable property. The court concluded that Section 630 is within the legislative competence of Parliament.
  
  2. Stay of Criminal Proceedings Pending the Decision of the Declaratory Suit:
  
  The petitioner sought a stay of the criminal proceedings pending the decision of the declaratory suit filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, where he sought a declaration that he is a tenant of the premises. The court referred to the decision in *Dr. Suresh Venkatrao Nerlekar v. Sharanghadar Pandurang Nadkarni [1982] 1 Bom. CR 867*, which held that criminal proceedings should not be stayed merely because a civil suit is pending on the same issue. The court found it neither expedient nor necessary to stay the criminal proceedings pending the decision of the declaratory suit.
  
  3. Jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to Entertain the Complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956:
  
  The petitioner argued that the criminal court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, as the Court of Small Causes at Bombay had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the tenancy dispute. The court rejected this contention, noting that the plea of tenancy was not bona fide. The flat in question was allotted to the petitioner for his occupation during his employment with the company, and he was not entitled to continue occupying the premises after his services were terminated. The court held that the criminal court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 630.
  
  4. Suppression of Facts by the Petitioner in the Present Petition:
  
  The respondent's counsel pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar application under Section 482, Cr PC, for quashing the criminal proceedings and had withdrawn it. The petitioner, however, did not mention this fact in the present petition. The court emphasized that a petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction must be candid and not suppress material facts. Although the court found that the petitioner should have disclosed the earlier petition and its withdrawal, it did not dismiss the present petition solely on this ground. Instead, the court dismissed the petition on its merits.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, holding that Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, is within the legislative competence of Parliament, the criminal proceedings need not be stayed pending the declaratory suit, the criminal court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the petitioner's suppression of facts did not warrant dismissal of the petition but was noted as improper conduct. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of respondent No. 1 and bear his own costs.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 243
  
  Issues Involved
  1. Competency of the application u/s 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, before a winding-up order is made.
  2. Issuance of directions for financial arrangements and property disposition during the pendency of winding-up petitions.
  
  Summary
  
  Re: Competency of the application u/s 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956

  The court examined whether an application under section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, is competent before a winding-up order is made. The section provides that any disposition of the property of the company made after the commencement of the winding-up shall be void unless the court orders otherwise. The purpose of this provision is to prevent improper disposition of property that would reduce the assets available for distribution among creditors. The court noted a judicial conflict on whether such jurisdiction can be exercised before a winding-up order is made. The court referenced multiple cases, including Tulsidas Jasraj Parekh v. Industrial Bank of Western India, which emphasized that bona fide transactions in the ordinary course of business should be sanctioned to avoid paralyzing the company's trade. The court concluded that the jurisdiction to validate transactions before a winding-up order is made is within its power, as restricting this would defeat the purpose of keeping the company as a going concern.

  Re: Issuance of directions for financial arrangements and property disposition

  The court considered whether the directions as prayed for should be issued, validating the disposition of the property intended by the company for securing advances from financial institutions. The court emphasized that transactions necessary or expedient in the interest of the company and its creditors and shareholders, entered into bona fide and in the ordinary course of business, should be maintained. The court noted the State Government's declaration of the company as a relief undertaking and its efforts to revive sick units. The court highlighted the potential adverse impact on workers and their families if the company could not secure the necessary funds. The court found no objections from shareholders or creditors against the directions sought. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to issue the directions, ensuring the company could continue its operations and serve the interests of all stakeholders.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 228
  
  Issues involved: Impugning the order of the learned company judge dismissing the winding-up petition based on a dispute over the claimed amount and interest rate.
  
  Summary:
  The appellants filed a winding-up petition claiming an amount due from the respondent company, comprising the principal amount and interest. The respondent had promised to supply an equivalent quantity of rejected goods or make repayment. The appellants' attorneys' letter served as a notice u/s 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, demanding repayment. The company judge dismissed the petition stating the interest rate claimed was unjustified. The appellants challenged this order, arguing that even if the interest claim was unjustified, the dismissal of the petition was incorrect if the principal amount claim was valid. The main issue was whether a winding-up petition could be dismissed solely based on a disputed interest rate when the principal amount exceeded the statutory limit.
  
  The court referred to precedents from English and Indian courts, emphasizing that a winding-up order should not be refused solely due to a dispute over the exact amount owed. The court held that if a portion of the claim was in dispute but the remaining amount exceeded the statutory limit, the petition should not be dismissed. Disputes over interest rates should not invalidate the statutory notice or warrant dismissal of the petition. The company judge should have considered the validity of the principal amount claim and whether a genuine dispute existed before dismissing the petition. The court set aside the dismissal order and restored the winding-up petition for reconsideration by the company judge.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the winding-up petition was restored for further consideration by the company judge. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and any opposing affidavits regarding the principal amount claim were to be considered. The Notice of Motion was also disposed of accordingly with no costs awarded.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 218
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Concession of duty under Notification No. 141/76-Cus.
  2. Method of testing tallow for color specifications.
  3. Validity of the Appellate Collector's order.
  4. Natural justice and procedural fairness in the rejection of refund claims.
  5. Impact of international standards on testing procedures.
  6. Validity of the review notice issued by the Government of India.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Concession of Duty under Notification No. 141/76-Cus.:
  The companies involved in the appeals imported tallow and claimed a concession of duty under Notification No. 141/76-Cus., which exempted tallow with specific characteristics from customs duty beyond 15% ad valorem. The notification detailed specifications for moisture, color, saponification value, iodine value, acid value, unsaponifiable matter, and titre of fatty acids. The Customs found that the imported tallow failed to meet the color specification, leading to the denial of the exemption and subsequent appeals.
  
  2. Method of Testing Tallow for Color Specifications:
  The Appellate Collector concluded that the failure to meet the color specification was due to improper testing methods by the Customs House. He argued that the tests should have followed the American Oil Chemists' Society (A.O.C.S.) method, which involves refining and bleaching the tallow before testing for color. The Appellate Collector believed that the tallow imported was not pure mutton tallow but largely beef tallow, and thus, the testing method should be adjusted accordingly. The Customs House had tested the samples as per IS 548, which did not require bleaching before color testing.
  
  3. Validity of the Appellate Collector's Order:
  The Tribunal found the Appellate Collector's reasoning flawed. The exemption notification did not distinguish between mutton tallow and other animal tallows. It was intended for all types of tallow, provided they met the specified characteristics. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification's specifications must be adhered to strictly, as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Hemraj Gordan Das v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Dunlop India and Madras Rubber Factory v. Union of India. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellate Collector's order was incorrect and should be set aside for the eight importers' appeals.
  
  4. Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness in the Rejection of Refund Claims:
  The rejection of Bombay Oil Industries' refund claims was contested on the grounds of denial of natural justice. The company argued that they were not given notice or a personal hearing before the Assistant Collector rejected their claim. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of natural justice but found that the Assistant Collector's rejection was based on the inapplicability of Notification 168/78-Cus. retrospectively. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to remand the case for a fresh hearing and rejected Bombay Oil Industries' appeals.
  
  5. Impact of International Standards on Testing Procedures:
  The importers argued that the tallow should be tested according to international standards, specifically the A.O.C.S. method, which is commonly used in international trade. The Tribunal noted that while international standards might be relevant, the exemption notification under Indian law must be strictly followed. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Customs should accept international testing certificates, emphasizing that the goods must meet the specifications of the Indian notification.
  
  6. Validity of the Review Notice Issued by the Government of India:
  The review notice issued by the Government of India under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was challenged on the grounds that it was based on the recommendations of the Collector. The Tribunal found no procedural impropriety in issuing the notice based on the Collector's recommendations. The Tribunal held that the review notice was valid and rejected the argument that it was vitiated.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal set aside the Appellate Collector's order concerning the eight importers' appeals and upheld the Customs' original decision to deny the exemption based on the failure to meet the color specification. The Tribunal also rejected the appeals of Bombay Oil Industries, finding no merit in their arguments for remand or procedural unfairness. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict terms of the exemption notification and the validity of the review notice issued by the Government of India.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 213
  
  Issues:
  - Rejection of refund claims for auxiliary duty paid under Customs Act, 1962.
  - Applicability of Section 27 of the Act regarding limitation for refund claims.
  - Interpretation of protest in the context of duty payment.
  - Comparison with previous judgments on similar matters.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment concerns the rejection of refund claims for auxiliary duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims as time-barred under Section 27 of the Act due to late submission of applications beyond the stipulated period. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
  
  The appellants argued that the duty paid was exempted under specific notifications and was paid under protest during goods clearance, thus exempting them from the limitation period under Section 27. They contended that the Assistant Collector lacked authority to collect the duty, making the refund claim valid. The appellants highlighted entries in the bills of entry indicating exemption from duty and cited the absence of a formal protest process in the Customs Act.
  
  During the hearing, the appellants referenced previous judgments to support their argument. They cited the Union Carbide India Limited case, where it was held that Section 27 would not apply in similar situations. Additionally, they referred to the minority view in the Laboratories Vifor case, emphasizing that collection without authority might not fall under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  
  In contrast, the Senior Departmental Representative emphasized the established procedure for lodging a protest and noted the absence of a formal protest in the present case. He pointed out discrepancies in the bill of entry entries, indicating that auxiliary duty was not explicitly exempted. Referring to previous decisions, he highlighted the obligation to adhere to Section 27 for duty collections under the Customs Act.
  
  The Tribunal scrutinized the bill of entry entries and concluded that no formal protest had been made before or during filing. They noted that the telex referred to by the appellants pertained to countervailing duty, not auxiliary duty. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument, stating that the lack of a formal protest rendered their claim invalid under Section 27.
  
  In the final analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claims as time-barred. They clarified that the duty payment, not being a result of jurisdictional error, fell within the purview of Section 27, making the limitation period applicable. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and established norms in duty payment and refund claims under the Customs Act.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 212
  
  Issues:
  1. Grant of stay in respect of fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q.
  2. Interpretation of provisions of Section 35(F) of The Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
  3. Exercise of inherent powers for the grant of stay in respect of fine in lieu of confiscation.
  4. Determination of financial status and undue hardship for granting stay.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The appellant filed an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, seeking a stay in respect of a fine and penalty. The appellant's advocate requested the court for a stay due to undue hardship, citing previous judgments. The respondent opposed the grant of stay, suggesting a deposit of 50% of the penalty amount. The court considered the arguments and the financial status of the appellant before making a decision.
  
  2. The court examined the provisions of Section 35(F) of The Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, which empowers the court to grant stay only in respect of duty or penalty. The court noted that the Act does not explicitly allow for stay in the case of redemption fine. Citing previous judgments, the court clarified that inherent powers can be used to grant stay against recovery of fines, but in this case, there was no justification for exercising such powers for the redemption fine.
  
  3. The court referenced previous judgments to establish the scope of its inherent powers to grant stay in certain cases. It highlighted that while inherent powers can be exercised for granting stay against recovery of fines, the appellant's case did not warrant the use of such powers for the redemption fine. The court emphasized the need for proper evidence and justification before invoking inherent powers for granting stay.
  
  4. In determining the financial status and undue hardship faced by the appellant, the court considered the arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence of financial hardship regarding the redemption fine. However, in the case of the penalty, the court acknowledged the appellant's genuine plea for undue hardship and directed a specific deposit amount and bank guarantee within a specified timeframe to ensure compliance with the order. Failure to comply would result in the automatic vacation of the stay.
  
  Overall, the judgment delves into the specific legal provisions governing the grant of stay in cases of fines and penalties, the limitations of inherent powers, and the importance of establishing financial hardship to warrant a stay. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the arguments presented and the legal framework governing such matters.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 211
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
  2. Levy of additional (countervailing) duty of customs.
  3. Inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value for customs duty.
  4. Validity of the appeals in the absence of original assessments.
  5. Execution of bank guarantees as per the Tribunal's stay order.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Imported Goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule:
  The primary issue discussed was the correct classification of the imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Department contended that the goods were classifiable under sub-item IV of Item 18, which covers "Non-cellulosic wastes, all sorts." The respondents contested this classification, arguing that no countervailing duty was leviable on the goods. The Collector (Appeals) concluded that the wastes covered by sub-item IV should be related to the manufacture of man-made fibres and filament yarn, and not spun yarn. Consequently, the imported synthetic waste did not fall within the purview of Item 18(IV) of the Central Excise Tariff.
  
  2. Levy of Additional (Countervailing) Duty of Customs:
  The Department's basic stand was that additional duty was applicable under sub-item IV of Item 18. However, the respondents argued that no countervailing duty should be charged. The Collector (Appeals) directed that the imported synthetic waste should be assessed under any other appropriate item of the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of levying additional duties of customs, excluding Item 18(IV).
  
  3. Inclusion of Landing Charges in the Assessable Value for Customs Duty:
  The respondents initially challenged the inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value for computing customs duty but later gave up this ground. The Collector (Appeals) held that landing charges are includable in the assessable value for the purpose of levying customs duties and additional customs duties.
  
  4. Validity of the Appeals in the Absence of Original Assessments:
  The Department argued that there was no original assessment on which a dispute could arise, as the goods were released based on the directions of the High Court without any assessment by the Customs authorities. The respondents countered that there was an assessment done on the ex-bond bills of entry, and the amount of duty was determined for the purpose of taking a bank guarantee. The Tribunal found that an appeal clearly lay to the Collector (Appeals) and further to the Tribunal, overruling the Department's objection.
  
  5. Execution of Bank Guarantees as per the Tribunal's Stay Order:
  The respondents were required to furnish bank guarantees as per the Tribunal's stay order. The Department raised a preliminary point that the respondents had not executed the bank guarantees. The respondents explained the delay was due to the old guarantees not being returned timely. The Tribunal found this explanation reasonable and proceeded with the matter, making it clear that any decision would be announced only after the bank guarantees had been executed.
  
  Separate Judgments Delivered:
  The Tribunal delivered separate judgments for the appeals related to Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Messrs Punjab Processors Ltd., and Messrs Gandharav Trading & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., rejecting all the appeals while allowing the assessing authority to take further action as per the directions in para 19.0 of the Collector (Appeals) order.
  
  Conclusion:
  All 44 appeals were rejected, with the appropriate assessing authority being at liberty to take further action in accordance with the directions contained in para 19.0 of the Collector (Appeals) order, without being bound by the Collector's observations elsewhere in the order.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 210
  
  Issues: Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E. to Methyl Acetoacetate as a drug intermediate for the manufacture of Analgin I.P.
  
  In the case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the issue involved in appeals No. 116/81-C and 1183/81-C was the applicability of Exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 to Methyl Acetoacetate as a drug intermediate for the manufacture of Analgin I.P. The Appellants imported consignments of Methyl Acetoacetate and claimed a refund of countervailing duty under the notification, which exempts "All drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified" from payment of Central Excise Duty. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector rejected the claim on the ground that Methyl Acetoacetate did not find exclusive use as a drug intermediate. The Appellants then filed Revision Applications before the Government of India, which were transferred to the Tribunal as Appeals.
  
  The Appellants argued that Methyl Acetoacetate is used as a drug intermediate for the manufacture of Analgin I.P., supported by certificates from the Joint State Drugs Controller. They referred to a Government of India Order where a similar exemption was granted for Methyl Acetoacetate. The Departmental Representative reiterated the grounds for rejecting the refund claim.
  
  The Tribunal considered the applicability of the notification and observed that Methyl Acetoacetate, despite having other uses, is used by the Appellants for the manufacture of Analgin I.P. The Tribunal agreed with the Government of India's view that a chemical can be considered a drug intermediate when actually used in drug manufacturing, even if it has other uses. Therefore, the Tribunal held that Methyl Acetoacetate qualifies as a drug intermediate under the notification, and the benefit of the exemption should be extended to the extent it is used for the manufacture of Analgin I.P. The Appeals were accepted in favor of the Appellants.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal determined the applicability of Exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E. to Methyl Acetoacetate as a drug intermediate for the manufacture of Analgin I.P., holding that the imported goods qualified for the exemption based on their use in drug manufacturing, despite having other potential uses.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 206
  
  Issues:
  1. Assessment of duty under Notification No. 49/78 for imported measuring machines.
  2. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding the eligibility for duty benefit.
  3. Compliance with Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 for duty assessment.
  4. Classification of imported machines under Notification No. 49/78 based on functionality.
  5. Consideration of essential functions and high accuracy standards for duty classification.
  6. Determination of compulsory supply and pricing inclusion for duty benefit eligibility.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The case involved the assessment of duty for imported measuring machines under Notification No. 49/78. The Appellants imported machines were initially assessed at the standard rate without the benefit of the notification, leading to appeals against the assessment by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Appellate Collector admitted the appeals and ordered a refund, extending the benefit of the said notification to the importers.
  
  2. The matter was brought before the Tribunal due to a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The JDR for the Appellants argued that the Appellate Collector's orders were erroneous, citing reasons such as non-compliance with the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 and the imported machines not meeting the criteria specified in Notification No. 49/78.
  
  3. The Advocates for the Respondents contended that the machines imported, along with the necessary accessories, were designed to perform all functions as per the notification's specifications. They argued that the accessories were integral fittings of the machines and should be entitled to relief under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal considered these arguments along with the Rules for Interpretation and the actual trade practices in the industry.
  
  4. The Tribunal analyzed the functions of the imported machines and accessories to determine if they could be considered a single assembled article. It was emphasized that the essential question was whether the imported items, when combined, enabled the machines to perform their designated functions. The Appellate Collector's detailed analysis of the functions and conclusions was deemed appropriate and unexceptionable.
  
  5. Regarding the high accuracy standards, it was noted that the essential criterion for classification under the notification was whether the machines could perform the functions specified, rather than the subjective assessment of accuracy. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Collector's approach in this regard.
  
  6. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of compulsory supply and pricing inclusion. It was established that compulsory supply should relate to the functions intended to be performed by the machine, and the pricing inclusion should consider the trade practices and part-wise break-up of the total price. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Collector and dismissed the appeals, affirming the duty assessment under Notification No. 49/78 for the imported measuring machines.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 205
  
  Issues:
  - Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods and the subsequent assessment of duties. The Respondents imported Calcium Tungstate, which was initially assessed under Chapter 32.04/12(1) of CTA, with Countervailing duty charged under Item 68 of Central Excise. The assessee claimed a refund, arguing that the assessment should fall under Chapter 28.01/58. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim, but on appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee, ordering classification under Chapter 28.01/58 CTA.
  
  The Department, aggrieved by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Department cited reasons for the delay, stating that the order required study and consultation with the Deputy Chief Chemist, causing the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time limit of three months. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was received approximately nine months after the expiry of the time limit.
  
  The legal principle governing the condonation of delay requires litigants to demonstrate due diligence and present sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that even if sufficient cause is shown, condonation of delay is not automatic but subject to the court's discretion. The Department failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay of nine months adequately. The reasons provided, such as the need for study and consultation with the Deputy Chief Chemist, were deemed insufficient. The Tribunal found that the Department's lack of prompt action and negligence in pursuing the matter led to the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 204
  
  Issues: Classification of imported goods under Indian Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Whether the goods imported by M/s. Law Publishers, Allahabad should be classified under Heading 32.04/12 or 32.13.
  
  In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with a Revision Application that was treated as an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The case revolved around the classification of 17 Cartons of Thermographic Printing Powder imported by M/s. Law Publishers, Allahabad. The importers sought clearance under Heading 32.13 of the Indian Customs Tariff Act, while the department assessed the goods under Heading 32.04/12 with additional duties. The Assistant Collector initially ruled against the importers, but the Appellate Collector overturned the decision, stating that the powder's principal function was to provide an embossing effect rather than color. The judges analyzed the competing entries of Heading 32.04/12 and 32.13, emphasizing that ink falls under Heading 32.13, while 32.04/12 covers color matter. The department argued that the powder did not qualify as ink due to the lack of a base or vehicle, and the process did not resemble traditional printing. However, the respondents contended that the goods should be classified as 'other ink' under Heading 32.13, citing Interpretation Rules and a Printing Ink Manual description of Thermographic Printing. The judges considered the printing process, noting that thermography involves fusing resinous compound powder onto a tacky image to create an embossing effect, which is a form of printing. They concluded that while the powder may not be conventional printing ink, it is akin to printing ink and falls under Heading 32.13, which includes 'other inks.' The tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Collector, rejecting the department's classification and affirming the classification under Heading 32.13 for the imported goods.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 197
  
  Issues:
  Classification of product under Item 17(2) of CET, applicability of Notification No. 184/76 for exemption, time-bar for demand, assessment under Item 22A or Item 68.
  
  Classification under Item 17(2) of CET:
  The dispute revolved around the classification of the product manufactured by M/s. East India Industries under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The Assistant Collector classified the product under Item 17(2) and demanded differential duty. The Appellate Collector upheld this classification, ruling out Item 22A and Item 68. The counsel for the appellant argued that the product could be assessed under Item 22A or Item 68, or if under Item 17(2), then the benefit of Notification No. 184/76 should apply.
  
  Applicability of Notification No. 184/76 for exemption:
  The central issue was the applicability of Notification No. 184/76 for exemption claimed by the appellant. The notification exempted "bitumenised waterproof paper and paper board obtained by bonding a layer of paper or paper board and another layer of paper or paper board with bitumen." The appellant contended that their product met this criterion. However, the Tribunal found that the product did not align with the notification's requirements as it involved bonding two layers of paper to a sheet of hessian with bitumen, rather than bonding paper to paper with bitumen.
  
  Time-bar for demand and Assessment under Item 22A or Item 68:
  The counsel for the appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as it was issued beyond the stipulated period. Additionally, they contended that if not assessed under Item 17(2), the product could potentially fall under Item 22A or Item 68. However, the department maintained that the product should be classified under Item 17(2) as it consists of "paper and paper board all sorts," and does not qualify for Item 22A due to the lack of predominance of jute.
  
  Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
  Both parties relied on various judicial precedents to support their arguments. The appellant cited cases emphasizing the use of specified raw materials for exemption eligibility, while the department highlighted judgments emphasizing adherence to clear statutory language for interpretation. The Tribunal ultimately held that the product did not meet the criteria for exemption under Notification No. 184/76 and dismissed the appeal.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal ruled in favor of the department, upholding the classification of the product under Item 17(2) of CET and denying the applicability of Notification No. 184/76 for exemption. The demand for duty was limited to the six months preceding the demand issuance based on the time-bar rule. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory compliance and clear interpretation in tax matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 196
  
  The appeal was about whether an automatic film processor imported by the appellants deserved concession under Customs Exemption Notification No. 11/77. The Tribunal decided in favor of the appellants based on previous decisions and set aside the appellate order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 191
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs against an Order-in-Revision.
  2. Limitation period for filing the appeal.
  3. Locus standi of the revenue to file the appeal.
  4. Interpretation of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the right to appeal.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The Collector of Central Excise and Customs filed an appeal against an Order-in-Revision issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of India. The appeal was presented after the limitation period, and no prayer for condonation of delay was made, leading to the appeal being dismissed due to being time-barred.
  
  2. The Junior Departmental Representative conceded that the appeal was indeed time-barred, and no request for condonation of delay was made. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to be hit by limitation and liable for dismissal.
  
  3. The Tribunal observed that the revenue had no locus standi to file the appeal as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The letter of authorization provided by the Collector did not align with the specific scenarios outlined in Section 129A, which only allows appeals by aggrieved persons such as assesses and not revenue authorities.
  
  4. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 129A, which delineates the scope of appeals that can be filed. It was noted that the Collector can only appeal against orders from specific authorities, which did not include the Special Secretary in this case. The judgment referenced a similar case from the West Regional Bench, Bombay, to support the interpretation that the Collector cannot be considered an aggrieved person without a specific legislative provision allowing such appeals. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions.

  ---

• 1984 (11) TMI 190
  
  Issues involved: Competence of Collector (Appeals) to exercise powers under Rule 12 of Central Excises Rules, 1944.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras was filed under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant sought to set aside an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras and restore the original order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kakinada Division. The Tribunal, after considering the records and hearing arguments, made the following order.
  
  The appeal was against the Collector (Appeals) condoning breaches of conditions under Rule 12 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944 and allowing a rebate claim for exported cotton terry towels. The appellant contended that the Collector (Appeals) lacked competence to exercise powers under Rule 12. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision involving the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, where it was observed that the Collector has the legal authority to condone minor lapses under Rule 12. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's order, stating that it was fair and equitable, dismissing the appeal filed by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I. The present appeal was also dismissed in line with the decision of the West Regional Bench.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920........ 144