|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 2911 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 117
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.
2. Justification for the penalty related to agency commission.
3. Justification for the penalty related to rent, electricity, and water charges.
4. Justification for the penalty related to payment to Shri C. L. Madhok.
5. Legality of proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
6. Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The core issue in both appeals was the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer imposed penalties for alleged concealment of income, which included agency commission, rent, electricity, water charges, and payment to Shri C. L. Madhok. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalties but on the grounds of filing inaccurate particulars rather than concealment of income.
2. Justification for Penalty Related to Agency Commission:
The assessee received commission for supplying materials on behalf of its principals to the Government of India. The commission was split into 80% received during the year and 20% retained in a suspense account pending final inspection. The Assessing Officer added the 20% commission to the income for the year, which was later deleted on appeal. The assessee filed a revised return under the Amnesty Scheme and paid tax on the additional income. The Tribunal held that the 20% commission did not accrue during the year, and the mere submission of a revised return under the Amnesty Scheme did not imply concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which supported the view that income not accrued during the year could not be penalized.
3. Justification for Penalty Related to Rent, Electricity, and Water Charges:
The assessee claimed the entire expenditure on a rented flat as business expenditure. However, it was found that a director lived in the flat, and only one-fourth of the expenditure was allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal, referencing the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v. Rita Mathotra, concluded that such disallowance did not amount to concealment of income but was a difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Consequently, no penalty was leviable on this disallowance.
4. Justification for Penalty Related to Payment to Shri C. L. Madhok:
The CIT(A) held that the penalty could not be levied on the payment to Shri C. L. Madhok as the matter was still unresolved and had been sent back to the Assessing Officer for further consideration.
5. Legality of Proceedings Under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee argued that there was no escapement of income within the meaning of section 147, and any proceedings, including the imposition of the penalty, were against the law. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in detail, focusing instead on the merits of the penalty itself.
6. Applicability of the Amnesty Scheme:
The Tribunal found that the submission of a revised return under the Amnesty Scheme was not an admission of concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized that the Amnesty Scheme allowed taxpayers to regularize their returns for various reasons, including purchasing peace with the department, without necessarily implying guilt of concealment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c). It concluded that the alleged income from the agency commission did not accrue during the year, and the disallowance of rent, electricity, and water charges was a matter of opinion rather than concealment. The submission of a revised return under the Amnesty Scheme did not equate to an admission of concealment or filing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) could not change the basis of the penalty from concealment to filing inaccurate particulars, referencing the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji.
-
1992 (11) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and scope of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Liability of importers to pay interest on duty under the DEEC Scheme after the statutory warehousing period.
3. Application of Exemption Notification and the DEEC Scheme to warehoused goods.
4. Legal distinction between Sections 59(1)(b) and 61(2) of the Customs Act regarding interest on duty.
5. Impact of judicial precedents and conflicting High Court rulings on the matter.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation and Scope of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962
The core issue revolves around whether importers are liable to pay interest on duty assessed at the time of warehousing under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, even when the goods are later cleared duty-free under the DEEC Scheme. The court analyzed the statutory language and determined that interest accrues on the duty amount from the expiry of the statutory warehousing period until the goods are cleared, irrespective of the duty being ultimately nil due to the DEEC Scheme.
2. Liability of Importers to Pay Interest on Duty under the DEEC Scheme
The petitioners argued that since the duty assessed was nil at the time of clearance under the DEEC Scheme, no interest should be payable. The court rejected this argument, stating that interest is an independent liability under Section 61(2) and is payable from the expiry of the warehousing period until the clearance date. The court held that the importers are liable to pay interest on the duty amount withheld during the warehousing period.
3. Application of Exemption Notification and the DEEC Scheme to Warehoused Goods
The petitioners contended that the Exemption Notification and the DEEC Scheme should be deemed effective from the date of warehousing, thereby nullifying the duty and interest liabilities. The court disagreed, emphasizing that the Advance Licence and Exemption Notification are prospective and cannot retroactively apply to the date of warehousing. The court clarified that the benefit of the DEEC Scheme applies only at the time of clearance, not retrospectively.
4. Legal Distinction between Sections 59(1)(b) and 61(2) of the Customs Act
The court distinguished between Sections 59(1)(b) and 61(2) of the Customs Act. Section 59(1)(b) involves a demand notice for duties and interest, whereas Section 61(2) automatically accrues interest on the duty amount after the warehousing period. The court noted that interest under Section 61(2) is delinked from the principal duty amount and is recoverable at the time of clearance. This distinction was crucial in rejecting the petitioners' reliance on the Kerala High Court's decision, which was based on Section 59(1)(b).
5. Impact of Judicial Precedents and Conflicting High Court Rulings
The petitioners relied on the Kerala High Court's decision in Thungabhadra Fibres Ltd. v. Union of India, which linked interest to the existence of duty. The court found this decision distinguishable and preferred the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Bangalore Wire Rod Mills v. Union of India, which supported the independent accrual of interest under Section 61(2). The court emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of the Customs Act across India and upheld the Karnataka High Court's reasoning.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the importers are liable to pay interest on the duty amount assessed at the time of warehousing from the expiry of the statutory period until the clearance date, even if the duty is ultimately nil under the DEEC Scheme. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs. The court refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India but stayed the operation of its order till 1st March 1993, allowing the petitioners to seek interim reliefs from the Supreme Court.
-
1992 (11) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
1. Prohibition on export of red-sanders wood under the new Import-Export Policy.
2. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel against the new policy.
3. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of the new policy regarding already prepared goods.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Prohibition on Export of Red-Sanders Wood Under the New Import-Export Policy:
The petitioner, a recognized exporter of musical instrument parts made from red-sanders wood, was affected by a sudden change in the Import-Export Policy in March 1992. The new policy, effective from April 1, 1992, introduced a prohibition on the export of red-sanders wood in any form, including musical instruments and chips, which were previously exported based on licenses issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. The petitioner sought clarification from the authorities, who confirmed the prohibition, citing Serial No. 7 of Part I and Serial No. 44 of Part V of the Negative List of Exports in the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97.
2. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel Against the New Policy:
The petitioner contended that the principle of promissory estoppel should apply since they had acted upon the earlier policy, which was valid until March 31, 1993, and had incurred financial detriment by entering into contracts and obtaining loans. The respondents argued that promissory estoppel does not apply to legislative actions, as the Import-Export Policy is a result of a legislative function under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. However, the court referred to various judgments, including the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Bansal Exports (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, which established that promissory estoppel can be invoked against executive actions but not against legislative actions.
3. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness of the New Policy Regarding Already Prepared Goods:
The court found the new policy to be arbitrary and unreasonable concerning goods already prepared for export. The respondents claimed the prohibition was an ecological conservation measure, yet there was no evidence that cutting red-sanders wood had been banned by the government. The court noted that if the trees had already been cut and converted into musical instrument parts, banning their export would not serve the purpose of ecological conservation. The court emphasized that the policy change at this stage, when the goods were ready for export, was unreasonable and arbitrary, lacking any nexus with the proclaimed objective of the new policy.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to relief and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to grant a license for the value of US $75,000 against the specified letter of credit. The writ petition was allowed to this extent, with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 114
The High Court at Calcutta considered a case involving the arrival date of a ship at the Port of Calcutta in relation to the lodging of a Bill of Entry with Customs Authorities. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the information provided by the Shipping Agent was not mala fide, and the writ petition succeeded. The court granted orders as per the prayers in the writ petition, and there were no costs awarded.
-
1992 (11) TMI 113
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of a petition seeking quashing of an order and directing acceptance of a Bank Guarantee instead of cash deposit. The petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 in cash and provide a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal was instructed to decide on the appeal within three months from the date of the court's order.
-
1992 (11) TMI 112
Issues:
- Interpretation of promissory estoppel in the context of customs regulations.
- Whether regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act can be considered as statutes.
- The applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a batch of writ petitions where the petitioners raised a plea of promissory estoppel concerning customs duty regulations. The petitioners, a private limited company dealing in photographic processes, imported goods under Tariff Item No. 84.66 before changes were made to the Customs Tariff Act in 1986. The petitioners entered into a contract based on the existing regulations and sought the benefit of concessional rates. However, subsequent changes in regulations adversely affected their claim for concessional duty rates.
The petitioners argued that the change in regulations deprived them of the benefit they were entitled to under the previous provisions. They invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel based on the representations in the regulations and sought relief based on their reliance on the previous tariff entry. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Collector of Customs, contended that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory regulations, emphasizing that the new regulations were framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act.
The court analyzed the issue of whether regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act can be considered statutes. It distinguished between regulations framed under Section 157 and rules framed under other sections, noting that regulations under Section 157 are for carrying out the Act's objectives. The court expressed a prima facie opinion that such regulations may not be on par with rules framed under other sections that require parliamentary approval.
The court disagreed with a previous Division Bench decision that held promissory estoppel cannot be applied against regulations framed under Section 157. It raised the question for a larger bench to consider whether such regulations can be termed as statutes and if the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked against them. The court directed the papers to be placed before the Chief Justice for further orders, indicating the need for reconsideration of the previous decision on this matter.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of promissory estoppel in the context of customs regulations, highlighting the debate over the nature of regulations framed under Section 157 of the Customs Act and their susceptibility to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court's decision to seek reconsideration on this issue signifies the importance of clarifying the legal standing of such regulations in relation to promissory estoppel.
-
1992 (11) TMI 111
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Directors and Officers of a Public Limited Company to be made liable for penalty under Central Excise Rules.
Analysis:
The judgment in question revolves around the issue of whether Directors and Officers of a Public Limited Company can be held liable for penalties under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. The petitioners, who are Directors/Executives of a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing activities, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune. The notice alleged contraventions related to excise duty payments and sought penalties amounting to a significant sum. The petitioners contended that the notice was incorrectly served on them as they were not the manufacturers of the excisable goods in question, and therefore, not liable for the penalties under the Central Excise Act. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules, emphasizing that the liability for excise duty payment and penalties rests with the manufacturer, which in this case was the Public Limited Company. The Court highlighted that the legal entity of the Company shields its Directors from personal liability unless specifically provided by statute. The judgment referenced a prior decision supporting this interpretation, reinforcing the principle that penalties cannot be enforced against individuals without a clear legal basis.
The Department argued that the functions of the Company are carried out by the Board of Directors and Executives, making them liable for penalties. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that penal liability must be explicitly provided for in the law. The Department also referred to Rule 209A, enacted after the period in question, to support their position. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the rule cannot be applied retrospectively and did not align with the circumstances of the case. Additionally, Rule 209A pertained to individuals involved in removing excisable goods with knowledge of liability for confiscation, which was not the case here. The Court firmly concluded that Rule 209A did not apply to the facts presented, further undermining the Department's position.
Lastly, the Department urged the Court to refrain from intervening under Article 226 of the Constitution and allow the Collector to adjudicate the matter. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing its duty to address jurisdictional issues. Citing a previous decision, the Court reiterated that when a show cause notice lacks jurisdiction, relief must be granted. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, striking down the show cause notice against them while allowing the Department to proceed against the Company. The judgment clarified that this decision did not impede the Department's actions against the Company and concluded without awarding costs to either party.
-
1992 (11) TMI 110
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of mala fides.
2. Confiscation of machinery post-clearance under Section 47.
3. Validity of machinery import under Open General Licence (OGL).
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Allegation of Mala Fides
The petitioner contended that the action of the second respondent was motivated by mala fides, influenced by a rival unit. The court examined the statement of objections, which asserted that the source of information about the alleged wrongdoing is irrelevant. The learned Counsel for the Central Government argued that no personal ill-will was attributed to the authorities and that the second respondent initiated statutory proceedings based on prima facie material. The court accepted this submission, noting that no personal animosity, bias, or prejudice was alleged against the Customs Department officers. It emphasized that the Intelligence Wing of the Customs Department typically verifies information from various sources and that the source of information cannot be disclosed. The court concluded that the informant's motive does not transfer to the second respondent and rejected the petitioner's contention.
Issue 2: Confiscation of Machinery Post-Clearance Under Section 47
The petitioner argued that since the machinery was cleared under Section 47 of the Customs Act and the order was not reversed in appeal or revision, the machinery could not be confiscated. The court noted that fiscal legislation typically includes provisions for reassessment and collection of taxes, and Section 28 of the Act allows for reopening assessments within six months or five years in cases of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The court emphasized that Section 47 does not grant absolute finality to clearance orders, and goods cleared under this section can still be subject to confiscation under Section 111(o) if conditions for exemption are violated. The court highlighted that the show cause notice referred to Sections 111(d) and 111(m), indicating the machinery's liability for confiscation.
The court cited several precedents to support its stance, including:
- Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. Union of India: The Delhi High Court held that clearance under Section 47 attaches finality unless fraud or deliberate suppression is shown.
- N.K. Bapna v. Union of India: The Supreme Court held that clandestine removal of goods from a bonded warehouse can be considered smuggling, even if the goods were assessed to duty.
- M.M. Joys Industries v. Union of India: The Madras High Court held that clearance under Section 47 does not preclude action under Sections 110, 111, or 113 of the Customs Act.
- M/s. Jacsons Thevara v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise: The Supreme Court upheld the applicability of Section 111(o) for goods partially exempted from duty.
- Gurupriya Tele Auto (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise: The Karnataka High Court held that Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act allows for reopening assessments, similar to Section 28 of the Customs Act.
The court concluded that the clearance under Section 47 does not bar subsequent confiscation proceedings and directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice.
Issue 3: Validity of Machinery Import Under OGL
The petitioner claimed that the machinery was validly imported under OGL, citing Appendix-I, Part-B, Item 10(56) of the Import and Export Policy. The court examined the relevant documents, including the application for the Importer Code Number and the DGTD's recommendation. The respondents contended that the machinery was not for manufacturing electronic components and equipment, and the petitioner only performed job work. The court noted that the show cause notice alleged suppression of facts and willful misstatement by the petitioner.
The court emphasized that these matters should be adjudicated by the appropriate authority and directed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. It cited several decisions to support its stance, including:
- Kamath Packaging Ltd. v. Union of India: The court held that action can be taken against imported goods if they are subsequently found to be prohibited.
- Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India: The Madras High Court left it to the statutory authorities to determine the validity of seizure and confiscation.
- M/s. Euresian Equipments & Chemicals Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs: The Calcutta High Court held that clearance for export under Section 51 does not bar subsequent proceedings if the clearance was unjustified.
- M/s. C.J. Sheth and Co. v. M.G. Abrol: The Bombay High Court held that clearance of goods does not result in estoppel against the Revenue.
The court concluded that the petitioner should respond to the show cause notice and participate in the proceedings. It allowed the petitioner to use the machinery during the pendency of the proceedings, subject to the condition that the machinery is not shifted or alienated.
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notice. The court allowed the petitioner to use the machinery during the proceedings, provided it is not shifted or alienated.
-
1992 (11) TMI 109
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore ruled that the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal erred in requiring a deposit of duty pending appeal. The court directed that the appeal be heard without the pre-deposit condition, but the petitioner must provide a bank guarantee equivalent to the required deposit amount within one month. The CEGAT must dispose of the appeal within three months.
-
1992 (11) TMI 108
The petitioner claimed refund of money deposited under Section 129E of the Customs Act for dutiability dispute on machinery. Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner. The court upheld the petitioner's contention and ordered refund of the deposited amount. The deposit made under Section 129E is not considered as duty payment, so refund is granted as the petitioner succeeded in the appeal. The writ petition succeeded, and the court granted the refund as requested.
-
1992 (11) TMI 107
The High Court of Bombay rejected an oral application for amendment of a petition challenging the rejection of refund applications by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan. The petitioners claimed that duty was paid under mistake of law and filed refund applications within a reasonable period. The Court held that the limitation period does not apply in cases of duty paid under mistake of law. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Collector for further consideration. No costs were awarded.
-
1992 (11) TMI 105
Issues:
Quashing of notice and demand notice based on exemption from Central Excise Duty under various notifications; Jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for modifying an approved list; Misrepresentation by the petitioner in obtaining approval of the list; Review of a classification list once approved by the Assistant Collector.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash a notice and demand notice related to Central Excise Duty exemptions under specific notifications. The petitioner claimed exemption under various notifications issued by the Government of India to promote SSI units' production. The issue arose when the Assistant Collector served a show cause notice questioning the petitioner's entitlement to the exemption. The petitioner contended that there was no misrepresentation in obtaining approval for the classification list. The respondents argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption under the amended notification. The court focused on whether the authority had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice for modifying the approved list.
The court analyzed the facts and found no evidence of misrepresentation by the petitioner in obtaining approval for the classification list. The approval was granted after the Assistant Collector examined the relevant notifications and sought clarifications from the petitioner. The court emphasized that once the Assistant Collector approves a classification list, it cannot be reviewed unless there is fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment of facts. Referring to a previous case, the court highlighted that the Assistant Collector's approval is a crucial part of the assessment process and cannot be reviewed without valid reasons.
Based on the findings, the court concluded that the show cause notice was unsustainable and ordered its quashing. Any demand arising from the notice was deemed unsustainable as well. The court directed the respondent authority not to recover any amounts from the petitioner based on the quashed notice. The judgment allowed the writ petition, quashed the notice, and mentioned that costs would be on the parties. The court clarified that its decision did not preclude parties from raising other issues in separate proceedings as per the law.
In summary, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional aspect of issuing a show cause notice for modifying an approved list, emphasizing the importance of valid reasons for reviewing such approvals and ensuring compliance with legal procedures in excise duty matters.
-
1992 (11) TMI 104
Issues:
Challenge to orders of Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise, interpretation of Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, validity of price list submitted by the petitioner, consideration of contracted prices, proper procedure for assessing duty under the Act.
Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash orders passed by the Assistant Collector and Collector of Central Excise and challenged the directions contained in a letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise. The dispute revolved around the price list submitted by the petitioner for the assessment of duty under Section 4(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The respondents argued that the price list was not applicable as it did not comply with the provisions of the Act. They contended that the prices varied for the same product sold to different classes of buyers and should have been filed under part I of Section 4(1)(a)(i). The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to support their claim that buyers in different regions constituted separate classes, thereby entitling them to the benefit under the proviso of the said section.
The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal, questioning the abnormal price differences in the price list submitted. The petitioner claimed that the prices were contracted prices based on trade practices and market factors. However, the appellate authority found that the submitted documents were merely price quotations and not detailed contracts. This led to the rejection of the petitioner's claim that the prices were contractual and in accordance with trade practices. The court observed that the appellate authority's decision was based on the absence of concrete evidence of contracts and directed a reevaluation of the case by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) after allowing the petitioner to submit evidence of contracts.
The court held that the appellate authority's decision was not sustainable as it did not give the petitioner an opportunity to establish the existence of contracts supporting the price list. The impugned order was quashed, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), emphasizing the importance of considering all issues raised by the petitioner, including legal matters, in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed, and the authority was directed to proceed as per the court's observations, with a reminder that the appeal process remained open for further review, especially considering any additional evidence that the petitioner might submit.
-
1992 (11) TMI 103
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking refund balance amount under two notifications.
2. Allegation of respondent not disposing of refund claim promptly.
3. Dispute over procedure followed for rebate claims.
4. Denial of allegations in rejoinder affidavit.
5. Petitioner's remedy for appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
6. Dispute over attestation of test memo for rebate claim.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a direction for the refund of the balance amount under two notifications, claiming eligibility for a total refund amount. While a portion had been refunded, the petitioner insisted on the balance. The respondent's delay in disposing of the claim was challenged, citing financial losses incurred due to the pending refund.
2. The counter-affidavit by the respondents detailed the petitioner's rebate claims under the notifications. It highlighted discrepancies in the procedure followed by the petitioner, leading to a review based on the last come, first go principle. The counter-affidavit clarified the status of the rebate claims and the need for the petitioner to provide further details for a comprehensive assessment.
3. The petitioner, through a rejoinder affidavit, contested the allegations regarding procedural lapses. The court clarified that the focus was not on the merits of the order passed but on the pending issues. The availability of an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was emphasized for addressing grievances on the refund orders.
4. Disputes arose over the attestation of the test memo for the rebate claim. The petitioner claimed to have submitted the required document, duly attested, while the respondents contended otherwise. The court directed the resolution of this issue within a specified timeframe, subject to the submission of a certified copy of the court's order.
5. Ultimately, the writ petition was partly allowed, with costs imposed on the parties. The court instructed the supply of a certified copy of the order to the learned counsel within a stipulated timeframe upon payment of charges, concluding the judgment.
-
1992 (11) TMI 101
Issues:
1. Whether the jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution should be exercised in a case challenging a show-cause notice?
2. Whether the Exemption Notification No. 217/86 dated 2-4-1986 falls within the scope of Sec. 2 of the Act?
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Court acknowledged that generally, jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 is not exercised in cases involving disputed facts and where there is a right of appeal. However, when the issue pertains solely to the interpretation of law concerning the authority to demand duty, the Court found it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction. In this case, the matter revolved around the interpretation of Sec. 2 of the Act and the notification, justifying the Single Judge's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227.
Issue 2:
The Court noted that the goods in question were covered by Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and were exempted from duty as per Notification No. 217/1986 dated 2-4-1986. The Act aimed to provide retrospective effect to notifications exempting goods from excise duty. The Act addressed situations where goods were exempted under the new Tariff Act but the exemption notification was issued after the new Act came into effect. The Court held that the notification dated 2-4-1986 fell within the scope of Sec. 2 of the Act as it maintained the effective rates of excise duties for certain goods prior to 1-3-1986. Therefore, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision to quash the show-cause notice based on the exemption notification falling under the Act's purview.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal as it found no merit in the arguments presented by the Central Government's standing counsel.
-
1992 (11) TMI 99
The High Court directed the Collector, Central Excise to dispose of the petitioner's stay application within three weeks. Recovery proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the application. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
1992 (11) TMI 97
The High Court of Bombay concluded that the Superintendent of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice for short payment of excise duty by a motor vehicle manufacturer. The Court held that the assessable value should not include items specified in the manufacturer's documents before clearance from the factory gate. The petition was successful, and the respondents were ordered to pay the petitioners' costs. (Case citation: 1992 (11) TMI 97 - High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
-
1992 (11) TMI 95
Issues: Customs clearance delay, auction sale of goods by Port Trust, dispute over sale price, refund of auction deposit, release of goods, costs, withdrawal of writ petition, claim for refund of port charges.
The judgment addresses the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the auction sale of goods by the Port Trust while customs clearance was pending. Initially, the goods were put up for sale to recover port charges, with an offer of Rs. 32,22,000, but the sale was not confirmed as the petitioner cleared the charges. Subsequently, the goods were auctioned again under the Walk-in Tender Scheme, and Respondent No. 5 offered Rs. 20,37,000. Despite customs authorities' instructions to withdraw the goods from auction, the Port Trust confirmed the sale. The Court noted the discrepancy in the sale price and directed the release of the goods to the petitioner upon payment of port charges and evidence of customs clearance. The auction deposit was to be refunded to Respondent No. 5, along with a solatium of Rs. 30,000. The Court also ordered costs to be paid by the petitioner and the withdrawal of the writ petition from the High Court, which was disposed of as infructuous.
In a subsequent order, the Court clarified that the payment of port charges would be as claimed by the Port Trust, but the petitioner could seek a refund upon producing a Detention Certificate, with the merit of the claim to be determined in accordance with the law.
-
1992 (11) TMI 94
Issues involved:
The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal regarding the order made by the High Court of Delhi in C.R. No. 2032/1992 and connected cases, specifically challenging the directive to pay interest on the disputed duty amount during the period of stay granted by the High Court.
Summary:
Issue 1: Interest on disputed duty during stay period
The High Court directed the petitioner to pay interest on the disputed duty amount for the period of stay granted during the proceedings. The petitioner did not contest the dismissal of the writ petition but challenged the imposition of interest, arguing that the rate of 17.5% was excessive and unjustified. The petitioner claimed that the financial burden of paying interest would be detrimental to their business. The Supreme Court, considering the circumstances, reduced the interest rate to 12% per annum and ordered it to be calculated from 1st January, 1985, the date from which the interest would accrue till payment. The Court found the interest imposition justified from the said date till payment, despite the uncertainty of the duty's legality prior to the Court's decision in September 1984.
Conclusion:
The Special Leave Petition was disposed of accordingly, with the interest rate reduced to 12% per annum and calculated from 1st January, 1985 till payment.
-
1992 (11) TMI 92
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 160/88 and Notification No. 88/88.
2. Legality of interim orders extending beyond the date of judgment.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
4. Disputed questions of fact to be determined by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
5. Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Entitlement to Exemption:
The petitioners sought declarations that their imported goods were exempt from auxiliary duty under Notification No. 160/88 and Notification No. 88/88. They also sought directions for the release and clearance of their consignments without excessive duty. The learned Single Judge concluded that the entitlement to exemption involved factual determinations, which must be decided by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court emphasized that "unless conclusions are drawn on questions of fact this Court will not be in a position to appreciate the matter in a correct perspective."
2. Legality of Interim Orders Extending Beyond Judgment:
The learned Single Judge issued interim orders allowing the petitioners to remove the goods subject to furnishing a Bank Guarantee, effective until the proceedings before the CEGAT concluded. The respondents contended that such directions were impermissible under Sections 128, 129A, 129E, and 130E of the Customs Act. The court held that interim directions should not circumvent the statutory provisions governing appeals and deposits. It was stated, "the direction of the nature issued by the learned Single Judge, takes away the jurisdiction of the Appellate Collector and the CEGAT."
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227:
The respondents argued that the High Court could issue interim directions under Articles 226 and 227 to protect the petitioners' interests until the matter reached CEGAT. The court, however, noted that such directions must align with the statutory framework and cannot override specific provisions of the Customs Act. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal, which held that interim relief under Article 226 cannot extend beyond the final judgment if it circumvents statutory requirements.
4. Disputed Questions of Fact:
The court reiterated that it is not appropriate for it to resolve disputed questions of fact under Article 226. These should be determined by the fact-finding authority, in this case, the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court stated, "In such cases, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction and directs the authority which is empowered under the Act, to determine the facts necessary for the purpose of the reliefs sought."
5. Compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act:
The court emphasized that the statutory requirement under Section 129E for depositing the duty demanded or penalty levied before an appeal can be heard must be adhered to. It was held that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge circumvented these statutory requirements, which was impermissible. The court stated, "the appellant cannot avail the right of appeal unless he complies with the proviso to Section 129E or satisfies the Collector or the Appellate Tribunal."
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the interim directions issued by the learned Single Judge were set aside. The orders of the learned Single Judge were otherwise undisturbed. The court recorded the submission that the Bank Guarantee furnished by the respondents would not be enforced until the Assistant Collector decided the case.
............
|
9911796707
