|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 2885 Records
-
1992 (12) TMI 199 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al liability of CRL in paying the excise duty. The bonds executed by the CRL, IOC and HPC are not part of the document before us. In the circumstances, the view taken by the Tribunal that the assessee has only discharged the liability of CRL while paying excise duty cannot be faulted. The ultimate discharge of the liability by HPC is a liability of the CRL. The view to the contrary taken by the Deputy Commissioner is not correct in law. We confirm that excise duty paid by the petitioner was in discharge of the liability of the CRL and, therefore, it will form part of the purchase turnover of the petitioner for the purpose of section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Ltd. 1981 48 STC 37 (Ker) does not lay down the correct law and we overrule the same. The tax revision cases are, therefore dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... cated. The trial court is directed to proceed further with the case as early as possible. The writ of this order be sent down to the trial court forthwith. At this stage, Shri Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, requested this court to continue the ad interim relief for some time. The request made by Shri Shah cannot be accepted for the simple reason that a poor and unfortunate person like the complainant is the victim in this case who is cheated of his hard-earned money and instead of paying the amount, the accused persons have the luxury, of litigation before the trial court, Sessions Court, this court and now for going to the Supreme Court. Therefore, this court will not entertain such a request of extending interim relief even for a day particularly when in the earlier petition this court has itself directed the trial court to expedite the case. Therefore, this request is also rejected. The writ of this order be sent down to the trial court forthwith.
-
1992 (12) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Officer who is in default – Meaning of, Public deposits ... ... ... ... ..... a High Court, as stated supra, expressed thus (at page 677) From this observation, conversely it follows, that if notice is served and if no reply is received, it must be held that that officer has knowingly committed default. So saying, the learned judge held that the complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies against the company and all its directors treating them as officers in default is maintainable. From the discussion as above, it goes without saying that the petitioner-accused No. 4 cannot at all be construed to be an officer in default under the provisions of section 5 of the Act. For the reasons as above, the prosecutions as launched against the petitioner mdash accused No. 4 deserve to be quashed. In the result, both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C. C. Nos. 1291 and 1292 of 1983, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. No. 1), Egmore, Madras, as against the petitioner mdash accused No. 4 shall stand quashed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 196 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Appointment of sole selling agent ... ... ... ... ..... d 65 of the Contract Act create different kinds of obligations and require different kinds of evidence. Since we are interfering with the impugned judgment and remitting the case for a fresh hearing, after reframing the issues in the light of the observations made above, we think it proper to reopen the determination of the issues as to the quantum of compensation to either side or accounting, as the case may be. In view of what has been found by us, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the case to the trial court for rehearing in accordance with law after reframing the issues and if necessary affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, if any. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remitted for trial and disposal in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal will be refunded in accordance with law.
-
1992 (12) TMI 195 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Compromise and arrangement ... ... ... ... ..... le to be rejected. From the foregoing discussions it is clear that the scheme is put forth with a view to delay the winding up proceedings. Though the hearing of the application is adjourned several times, the applicant propounder was not able to say how he would make available of funds for running the mill, and make payments to the various creditors. That apart, the applicant has not refuted the allegations made by the respondent-bank in its objection statement, by filing any reply. The scheme, even otherwise, does not appear to be feasible and viable. I am also of the opinion that the scheme is not genuine, bona fide and it would not be in the interest of the creditors and the company. The scheme is put forward by the applicant propounder mainly for the purpose of prolonging the winding up proceedings. That apart, the scheme is extremely vague. In view of the above discussions, Company Application No. 873 of 1991 is dismissed with costs. The cost is quantified at Rs. 3,000.
-
1992 (12) TMI 194 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up – Circumstances in which a company may be would up, Company when deemed unable to pay its debts, Winding up – Application for
-
1992 (12) TMI 173 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Appointment and powers of provisional liquidator, Appointment of provisional liquidator
-
1992 (12) TMI 165 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the demand was confirmed and a penalty of Rs. 100/- was imposed on the respondents. In appeal, before the Collector (Appeals) by the respondents, the same was allowed. The present appeal has been brought by the revenue against the aforesaid order. 3. emsp After hearing both sides, I find the undisputed factual position, wherein it is clearly admitted by the revenue that the clearance of the goods as pre-excise stock was effected under regular gate passes at Nil rate of duty which were submitted along with RT 12 returns. In my view, the extended period cannot be available because the facts are known to the department and they seem to have failed to take appropriate steps to demand the duty in time. When the mistake is on both the sides, the extended period cannot be made available by alleging suppression only against the respondents especially when the fact of clearances was known to the department. Hence, I am unable to accept the appeal from the Revenue, which is dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... made available with due diligence was not made available or produced, the same cannot be permitted to be introduced after a lapse of several years before the appellate authority. Some of the grounds raised additionally are only elaboration of the pleas urged before the adjudicating authority and those have been considered by us in the reasoning set out above. The Miscellaneous application with reference to adducing additional evidence to the extent to which it seeks to adduce additional evidence for the first time after a lapse of several years before the appellate forum is, therefore, not permitted and the Misc. application in this regard and to this extent stands rejected. 10. emsp Therefore, we uphold the findings of the adjudicating authority in the impugned order and confirm the duty in terms thereof. However, having regard to the quantum of duty we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000 (Rs. Fifty thousand). Except for the above modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 163 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... and circumstances of this case as discussed by us above. We have considered the matter in detail and we had already come to the conclusion that no reliance could be placed on the untrustworthy affidavit filed by the applicant. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of this case, the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is not rebutted by the applicant. That being the case, the plea of the applicant that she never received the order-in-original impugned and she never had knowledge of the same prior to her daughter intimating her, is totally unacceptable. The application therefore is devoid of any merits and we accordingly dismiss the same. 16. In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal No. C/402/92-Bom., against the Order-in-Original No. DRI/BZU/101/34/88/3791 (S/14-5-385/88) dated 17-4-1990, the Appeal No. C/402/92-Bom. as well as the Stay Application No. C/Stay-488/92-Bom. therefore stand dismissed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 162 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Appeal - Adjudication - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... n claimed by them. In this view of the matter action against the appellant has to be considered only in the context of he being a guarantor and there is no question of any adjudication order being passed for enforcing the guarantee. Order passed therefore by the authority which is impugned before us can only be taken as a demand against the appellant in terms of the guarantee executed by the appellant. Civil liability incurred by the appellant can be enforced by the Department in the manner known to law and the Tribunal is not the forum for that. Appellant also has the remedy open to him in a forum known to law and the Tribunal is not the legal forum for the purpose as the legal mandate under which the Tribunal operates only relates to orders passed under the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant and not for enforcement of civil obligation undertaken by bonds and guarantees. I, therefore, agree with my learned Brother that the appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal.
-
1992 (12) TMI 161 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
‘Fabrics’ include non-wovens - Additional duty leviable ... ... ... ... ..... e, ingredients of the present goods imported Polypropylene fibre will be covered for the purposes of additional duty. The arguments put forth in the Cross-objection with reference to applicability of Notification No. 89/92 do not advance the case of the appellants because in the first place, it is a case of appellants claiming refund and, therefore, they should specifically make the claim under that notification in their refund claim and it is not the case that they have done so. In the result, it is held that the additional duty on the ingredients of the imported non-wovens in these cases under Sec. 3(3) of CTA, 1975 had been correctly levied and in this view of the matter, the impugned orders of the Collector are set aside and Cross-Objection is also disposed of with the observation that since the respondents are not aggrieved with any portion of the Collector (Appeals) order as such Cross-objection is misconceived and is rejected. The appeals by the Department are allowed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 160 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Limitation - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... rtain period under the instructions of the Department. Though the Department had not given them the correct advice and in fact negatived their correct claim of classification under Item 17, the appellants rsquo acceptance of that classification giving up their own stand has created the problem for them as they had neither paid duty under protest nor were the goods assessed provisionally. In the circumstances, the statutory remedy of refund available to them was only within the parameters of Section 11B. In so far as their refund claim as such was filed only beyond a period of six months from the relevant date and as the claim had not been saved by either a protest or provisional assessment, the Departmental authorities had rightly rejected their claims as barred by limitation. Though this is a hard case, no relief can be extended to them in view of the statutory requirements under the said Section 11B. In the circumstances, I dismiss the Appeals and uphold the impugned order.
-
1992 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Adjudication - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ve it might be, can scarcely take the place of proof. It is also equally well established that onus of proof of clandestine removal is on the Department, proceedings being penal in nature. Since the evidence available on record is hardly sufficient to sustain the charge set out in the show cause notice, we are inclined to think that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the proceedings are penal in nature. We, therefore, give the appellant the benefit of doubt arising in the facts and circumstances of the case and exonerate him of the charge and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. In the light of our findings above we do not feel called upon to go into the question with reference to the price per Kg. or the rate at which the goods manufactured and allegedly removed illicitly by the appellant was sold. 8. In the result, the appellant is given the benefit of doubt and the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (12) TMI 158 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... e into the Territory of India contravening the provisions of the Import Control Order, the goods are liable for confiscation. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the goods. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of absolute confiscation of the goods. No re-export of the goods is permissible in such circumstances. In view of the conduct of the appellants and also the fact that the goods were not covered by a valid licence and since they were cleared in the name of two firms who never made any such contract with the appellants, the absolute confiscation of the goods is justified. The question of giving option to the appellants for redeeming the same also does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case as already narrated by us. 20. emsp In the result, we are of the opinion that the appeals are devoid of any merits and accordingly the appeals are liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.
-
1992 (12) TMI 157 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Spring - RG 1 stage - Maintenance of accounts ... ... ... ... ..... s, we are to sustain the order of confiscation of all the springs (excepting 1440 springs) which are not accounted for. There is an apparent deliberate violation of the legal requirement noticed because of the fact that the appellants, having agreed to account for the goods after painting, seemed to have ignored the same. Hence, penalty is also required to be upheld. 10. emsp Now, we come to consider the quantum of fine and penalty. The plea raised is that in the past 17 years, there was no case of any attempted clandestine removal from the factory. We also find from the order that there is no allegation of past misconduct, justifying a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 25,000. Moreover, much of the goods are tailor-made for Railways and hence in the absence of any evidence of previous misconduct, we would deem it proper to extend the leniency. Accordingly, we reduce the fine to Rs. one lakh and the penalty to Rs. 10,000 only. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (12) TMI 156 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... urt had observed that the provision conferring right of appeal should be construed in a reasonable, practical and liberal manner. In view of the above, we hold that this is a fit case for giving appellants an opportunity to put forth their case before the lower authority and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for giving finding on the merits of the case after hearing the appellants in the matter. The appellants also shall file the appeal in the prescribed proforma in form C.A. 1 before the Collector (Appeals) alongwith copy of the Deputy Collector rsquo s order-in-original. The appeal is disposed in the above terms. It is also directed that the Collector (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously on the appellants complying the procedural requirements, since in the first instance the appeal had been rejected only for non-compliance with procedural requirements and since decision on merits is still pending.
-
1992 (12) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nd has further wrongly applied Rule 9A(5). 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides. 9. We observe that in view of the contents of the show cause notice and the order-in-original itself, prima facie it appears that the material in question was still in the kachcha pits said to be within the licensed premises during the relevant time. 10. The fact of storage in kachcha pits was apparently known to the Department. There is reference to the remission application in the order itself and admittedly it was pending consideration of the Department, when the adjudication proceedings in this matter were taken up. It is also a fact that duty is normally required to be paid on excisable goods at the time of removal from the factory. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and noting the above aspects in particular including that of time bar we feel that the appellants were able to show a prima facie case in their favour. We, therefore, grant the prayer.
-
1992 (12) TMI 154 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit - Notional Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ce. 7. emsp Though the view taken by this Bench cannot be dismissed as being illogical or unreasonable for the reasons discussed above, I do agree that there is a point of law, on which an authoritative pronouncement would be more useful to both the sides. Only in this view of the matter, I would agree to this. Accordingly, the following question of law is referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay for consideration ldquo Whether in the context of the provisions of Rule 57B read with Central Excise exemption Notification No. 175/86 (para 4 thereof), the Tribunal is justified in holding that higher notional credit, though otherwise eligible at the time of entry of the inputs, but not taken, could be taken at a subsequent stage within a period of six months applying the time limit prescribed under Section 11B. rdquo 8. emsp Registry is directed to send the file containing the relevant orders to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for consideration of the reference application.
-
1992 (12) TMI 153 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... so as to make it that the appeal may not be rejected but the refund so due on the basis of the correct classification be granted to the appellant. rdquo In these circumstances, the question is only one of quantification of refund if any which may be due to the appellants consequent upon the finding that the goods are classifiable under Chapter 43 of CTA and CETA. There is, we find an ambiguity in this regard. It is not clear whether at any time this quantification has been attempted. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to afford the appellants an opportunity to establish before the Assistant Collector that any consequential refund is due at all and for this purposes, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of the Calcutta Customs House for affording an opportunity to the appellants to establish their claim as above. He may also give them an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
........
|
