Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 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 241 to 260 of 2976 Records

• 1993 (11) TMI 205
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of registration certificate and applicability to purchase of goods.
  2. Allegations of false representation by the dealer.
  3. Application of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
  4. Consideration of mens rea in cases of tax delinquency.
  
  Interpretation of registration certificate and applicability to purchase of goods:
  The case involved a revision preferred under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against an order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The issue revolved around whether the dealer was entitled to include an air-conditioner in the "C" form to avail of a concessional rate of sales tax. The authorities found that the air-conditioner was not connected to the printing press mentioned in the registration certificate, thus not eligible for the concessional rate. The certificate only covered specific machinery and materials required for the printing press, excluding air-conditioners. The inclusion of the air-conditioner in the "C" form was deemed a violation of the Central Sales Tax Act.
  
  Allegations of false representation by the dealer:
  The Commercial Tax Officer and appellate authorities found that the dealer falsely represented that the purchased goods were covered by the registration certificate. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, leading to a conclusion that the dealer misrepresented the goods' inclusion in the certificate of registration, specifically mentioning the purchase of film. The Tribunal upheld the finding of false representation, which was crucial in determining the applicability of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
  
  Application of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act:
  The Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty under section 10A due to the dealer's false representation regarding the inclusion of goods in the registration certificate. The penalty was reduced by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, but the Court upheld the decision, emphasizing that the dealer's conduct amounted to a violation of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing blameworthy conduct rather than mens rea in cases of tax delinquency, underscoring that a false representation alone could warrant penalty under section 10A.
  
  Consideration of mens rea in cases of tax delinquency:
  The Court discussed the necessity of proving mens rea in tax delinquency cases, citing relevant case law. It emphasized that the blameworthy conduct of the assessee, such as making a false representation, was sufficient to attract penalty under the Act. The judgment rejected the argument that mens rea must be separately established, asserting that the existence of blameworthy conduct inherently included the element of mens rea. The decision clarified that in cases of tax delinquency, establishing blameworthy conduct through actions like false representation was essential for invoking penalty provisions.
  
  In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision to reject the tax case based on the findings related to false representation and the violation of the registration certificate's terms.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 204
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether trade discount forms part of the sale price under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
  2. Distinction between trade discount and cash discount for the purpose of tax deduction.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether trade discount forms part of the sale price under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956:
  
  The central question referred to the court was whether the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that trade discount does not form part of the sale price, while under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, only cash discount has to be excluded from the sale price.
  
  The court examined the definition of "sale price" under Section 2(h) which states: "'sale price' means the amount payable to a dealer as consideration for the sale of any goods, less any sum allowed as cash discount according to the practice normally prevailing in the trade, but inclusive of any sum charged for anything done by the dealer in respect of the goods at the time of or before the delivery thereof other than the cost of freight or delivery or the cost of installation in cases where such cost is separately charged."
  
  The court also reviewed the definition of "turnover" under Section 2(j), which means the aggregate of the sale prices received and receivable by a dealer in respect of sales of any goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce made during any prescribed period and determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
  
  The court considered various precedents, including the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1979] 43 STC 126, where it was held that the "balance discount" formed part of the sale price of goods. Similarly, in India Pistons Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 33 STC 472, it was held that the expression "other discount" under the Act included bonus discount but did not attract the applicability of Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which excludes only "cash discount."
  
  2. Distinction between trade discount and cash discount for the purpose of tax deduction:
  
  The court analyzed the distinction between trade discount and cash discount. Trade discount, as defined in commercial parlance, is an allowance made by wholesale dealers to retailers off the catalogue or invoice price to enable the latter to sell goods at the catalogue price. This discount is deducted from the outward invoice sent to the retailer, and the entry in the sales book is made of the net amount. Trade discount does not appear in the books of either the seller or the purchaser.
  
  Cash discount, on the other hand, is an allowance in addition to the trade discount made by the seller to the purchaser, provided the latter settles his account promptly or within a specified time known as the 'period of credit.' This discount is receivable by the trader when he pays his account promptly and is allowed by him to his customers for the prompt settlement of amounts due.
  
  The court considered various judgments, including Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 84, where it was held that trade discount was not part of the sale price. Similarly, in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Advani Oerlikon (Private) Limited [1976] 37 STC 1, it was held that trade commission is not a part of the sale price.
  
  The court also referred to the apex court's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Advani Oerlikon (P.) Ltd. [1980] 45 STC 32, which held that cash discount and trade discount are two separate and distinct concepts. Under the Central Sales Tax Act, cash discount is allowed when the purchaser makes the payment promptly or within the period of credit allowed. Trade discount, on the other hand, is a deduction from the catalogue price of goods allowed by wholesalers to retailers and does not enter into the composition of the sale price.
  
  The court concluded that the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that trade discount does not form part of the sale price under Section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
  
  Petition dismissed

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 203
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against the order dismissing writ petitions seeking mandamus to restrain show cause notices for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The writ appeals were filed against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions seeking mandamus to restrain show cause notices for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The appellant/petitioner contended that the show cause notices issued were contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court. The assessing authority had proposed to assess turnover related to glass cloth or glass fabric, which the appellant/petitioner argued was beyond the authority of law. However, the Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to bypass statutory remedies unless the notices are clearly without jurisdiction. The authority has the right to decide whether glass fabric or glass cloth falls under the relevant provision of the Sales Tax Act. The Court highlighted that if the assessing authority errs in its decision, the appellant/petitioner has the right to appeal to higher authorities. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appellant/petitioner had prematurely approached the Court without waiting for the assessing authority's decision. The Court upheld the decision of the learned single Judge, stating that it was not the appropriate stage for interference and dismissed the writ appeals.
  
  Furthermore, the Court noted that the deadline for filing objections was approaching. Even though the writ appeals were dismissed, the Court deemed it just and necessary to grant the appellant/petitioner more time to file objections. The Court directed that if the objections were filed by a specified date, they would be considered, heard, and decided in accordance with the law. Until then, the assessing authority was instructed not to proceed with the show cause notices. No costs were awarded in this matter. The writ appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Court.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 202
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Accrual of Income for Retention Money
  2. Disallowance of Interest on Loan to Director
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Accrual of Income for Retention Money:
  The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 52,80,660, retained as retention money, accrued as income to the assessee during the relevant accounting year. The assessee, a manufacturer of instrumentation cables, argued that 10% of the payment withheld by customers as retention money did not represent income as its receipt was conditional upon the fulfillment of warranty obligations. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, asserting that the right to receive the payment accrued when the goods were supplied and the retention money was merely a postponed receipt.
  
  The Tribunal examined the terms of the contract, noting that the 10% retention was contingent upon the completion of certain conditions, such as the submission of a performance guarantee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's obligation to rectify defects did not create an enforceable debt until the warranty period ended. The Tribunal referred to the case of CIT v. Simplex Concrete Piles (I.) P. Ltd. [1989] 179 ITR 8 (Cal), where retention money was not considered accrued income until the completion of contractual obligations. The Tribunal concluded that the retention money did not accrue as income in the relevant year.
  
  2. Disallowance of Interest on Loan to Director:
  The second issue was the disallowance of Rs. 8,400 out of the interest paid by the assessee to various banks, related to an advance of Rs. 56,000 given to a whole-time director, Sri S. G. Hoskote. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest, asserting that the advance was not related to the assessee's business.
  
  The Tribunal found that the director was a technocrat associated with the company since 1987 and did not hold any shares, thus not being substantially interested in the company. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any direct nexus between the loan and the interest paid on borrowings, the disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal referenced CIT v. Kishinchand Chellaram [1977] 109 ITR 569 (Bom) and concluded that the lending of a small sum to a director free of interest should be considered an act of commercial expediency. The disallowance was deleted.
  
  Separate Judgment by Third Member:
  There was a difference of opinion between the Judicial Member and the Accountant Member regarding the first issue. The Judicial Member held that the retention money accrued as income, while the Accountant Member disagreed. The matter was referred to a Third Member, who agreed with the Accountant Member, concluding that the retention money should be excluded from the total income until the guarantee period was over.
  
  Final Decision:
  The appeal was partly allowed, with the disallowance of interest being deleted and the retention money not being considered accrued income for the relevant year.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 201
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Notification No. 179/77 and No. 118/75 to 'Thermit Portion', 'Ferro Alloys', and 'Togo Tenex'.
  2. Determination of whether the use of power in the manufacturing process disqualifies the goods from the benefit of the notifications.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Applicability of Notification No. 179/77 and No. 118/75 to 'Thermit Portion':
  The assessees claimed that 'Thermit Portion' was manufactured manually without using power, thus qualifying for the exemption under Notification No. 179/77. The ingredients of 'Thermit Portion' included Aluminium Granules, Mill Scale, Ferro Manganese, and Nail Chippings. The Aluminium Granules were manufactured using power, but the assessees contended that no new product came into existence under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Mill Scale was heated to remove impurities, and Ferro Manganese, purchased from the market, was also used. The Collector (Appeals) held that the mixing of these items was done manually without power, and the manufacturing processes of the raw materials were distinct and commercially identifiable. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 179/77 was correctly extended to 'Thermit Portion'.
  
  2. Applicability of Notification No. 179/77 and No. 118/75 to 'Ferro Alloys':
  The assessees argued that 'Ferro Alloys' were manufactured by manually mixing Aluminium powder with other raw materials purchased from the market. Although Aluminium powder was manufactured using power, it was a duty-paid, marketable commodity. The Collector (Appeals) agreed that the manual mixing of these ingredients without power qualified for the exemption under Notification No. 179/77. Additionally, the benefit of Notification No. 118/75 was extended to Roasted and Sieved Mill Scale and Aluminium powder used in 'Ferro Alloys' as they were separate and distinct commercial commodities liable for duty when cleared as such.
  
  3. Applicability of Notification No. 179/77 to 'Togo Tenex':
  'Togo Tenex' was manufactured using an oil furnace with an electrically operated blower for quick burning. The Collector (Appeals) did not provide a specific finding for 'Togo Tenex'. However, the Tribunal held that the use of an electric blower for quick burning constituted a process incidental and ancillary to the completion of the manufacture. Therefore, 'Togo Tenex' was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 179/77.
  
  4. Determination of whether the use of power in the manufacturing process disqualifies the goods from the benefit of the notifications:
  The Revenue contended that the use of power in the initial stages of manufacturing Aluminium Granules and Mill Scale should disqualify the final products from the exemption. However, the Tribunal held that since the ingredients were independent, duty-paid, marketable commodities, the manual mixing process without power for the final products 'Thermit Portion' and 'Ferro Alloys' qualified for the exemption. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works, which clarified that the use of power in any process integrally connected to the manufacture disqualifies the exemption. However, in this case, the final mixing process was manual, and the ingredients were already duty-paid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was partly allowed. 'Thermit Portion' and 'Ferro Alloys' were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 179/77, while 'Togo Tenex' was not. The benefit of Notification No. 118/75 was also extended to the Roasted and Sieved Mill Scale and Aluminium powder used in 'Ferro Alloys'.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 200
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Eligibility for Small Scale Industries Exemption under Notification 175/86.
  2. Ownership and use of the brand name "Kwality".
  3. Admissibility of additional evidence.
  4. Interpretation of para 7 and Explanation VIII of Notification 175/86.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Eligibility for Small Scale Industries Exemption under Notification 175/86:
  The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of ice cream under the brand name "Kwality," claimed an exemption under Small Scale Industries Exemption Notification 175/86. The jurisdictional Assistant Collector denied this exemption, stating that the brand name "Kwality" was owned by M/s. K.I.C. Food Products, New Delhi, who were not eligible for the exemption. This decision was based on para 7 of the Notification, which precludes the exemption if the specified goods are affixed with a brand name of another person not eligible for the exemption. The Assistant Collector's order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals), leading to the present appeals.
  
  2. Ownership and Use of the Brand Name "Kwality":
  The core issue revolved around whether the appellants could use the brand name "Kwality" for claiming the exemption. The appellants argued that the expression "Kwality" was not an invented word and was used by multiple manufacturers. They provided evidence from the Trade Marks Registry showing various entities using the "Kwality" brand, including pending applications and registrations by different manufacturers. The department, however, maintained that K.I.C. Foods, New Delhi, were the owners of the brand name "Kwality," and a disclaimer did not negate their ownership.
  
  3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence:
  The appellants sought to introduce additional evidence, including labels of competing manufacturers and letters from the Trade Marks Registry, to establish that multiple entities used the "Kwality" brand. The Tribunal found that not all documents were fresh and that some were relevant for a proper disposal of the appeal. It was deemed necessary to consider this evidence to meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal allowed the additional evidence to be taken on record and remanded the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for evaluation.
  
  4. Interpretation of para 7 and Explanation VIII of Notification 175/86:
  The Tribunal focused on the interpretation of para 7 and Explanation VIII of Notification 175/86, which define "brand name" or "trade name" and the conditions under which the exemption does not apply. The evidence provided by the appellants aimed to demonstrate that the "Kwality" brand was used by multiple manufacturers, thereby challenging the department's assertion of exclusive ownership by K.I.C. Foods. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of this evidence to determine the appellants' eligibility for the exemption.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the additional evidence to be taken on record and remanded the case to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector for a fresh decision. The Assistant Collector was directed to evaluate the new evidence and decide on the appellants' eligibility for the exemption under Notification 175/86, in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity for a hearing. The appeals were disposed of by remand to ensure a just resolution of the issues involved.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 199
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Authority to institute the suit.
  2. Validity of the board meeting and appointment of additional directors.
  3. Alleged corporate injury and fairness of share valuation.
  4. Compliance with the Companies Act and Articles of Association.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Authority to institute the suit:
  The plaintiff, Mr. Ferruccio Sias, filed a suit for damages, declaration, and injunction, asserting his position as a whole-time director of SAE (India) Limited. The court emphasized the necessity for proper authorization to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation. According to Order 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit must be signed and verified by an authorized person. The court referenced previous judgments, including Oberoi Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Observer Publications (P) Ltd. and Nibro Limited v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., which necessitated proper authorization by resolution or power of attorney for instituting a suit. Mr. Sias's power of attorney, dated May 28, 1993, only allowed him to sue jointly with others, not independently. Therefore, the court concluded that Mr. Sias lacked the authority to institute the suit on behalf of SAE (India) Limited.
  
  2. Validity of the board meeting and appointment of additional directors:
  The plaintiff contested the legality and mala fide nature of the board meeting held on September 15, 1993, during which four additional directors were appointed. The court noted that the notice for the meeting was sent by facsimile to all directors, including those abroad. The quorum for the meeting, as per the company's Articles of Association, was met. The court referenced Abnash Kaur v. Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, which held that only a notice of the meeting is required, not an agenda. The court found that the notice was adequate and the meeting was validly convened. The appointment of additional directors was within the board's powers under Article 88 of the Articles of Association and section 260 of the Companies Act.
  
  3. Alleged corporate injury and fairness of share valuation:
  The plaintiff alleged that the appointment of additional directors caused corporate injury to SAE (India) Limited. The court found no evidence of corporate injury. The disputes arose from the economic liberalization policies and the valuation of shares for the proposed amalgamation with Asea Brown Boveri (India) Limited. The court emphasized that the directors of SAE (India) Limited were duty-bound to protect the interests of the company and its shareholders. The valuation of shares was to be determined by a known expert, Mr. Malegam of S.B. Billimoria and Co., and approved by ICICI Securities and Finance Company Limited. The court concluded that the valuation process was fair and just.
  
  4. Compliance with the Companies Act and Articles of Association:
  The court examined the compliance with the Companies Act and the Articles of Association of SAE (India) Limited. The Articles vested control of the company in the board of directors, who were authorized to act on behalf of the company. The board's decision to issue additional shares to Elettrofin Societa Anonima Finanziaria and the proposed amalgamation with Asea Brown Boveri (India) Limited were within their powers. The court reiterated that the directors must act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, not under the influence of any holding company. The court found no violation of the Companies Act or the Articles of Association.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court held that Mr. Sias lacked the authority to institute the suit on behalf of SAE (India) Limited. The board meeting on September 15, 1993, and the appointment of additional directors were valid. There was no corporate injury to SAE (India) Limited, and the share valuation process was fair. The suit was dismissed following the principles laid down in previous judgments.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 198
  
  Issues involved: Winding up petition based on outstanding dues from respondent-company and maintainability of the petition due to reliance on running account.
  
  Judgment Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Outstanding Dues and Winding Up Petition
  The petitioner sought winding up of the respondent-company due to outstanding dues of Rs. 7,19,546.12, with a pending larger amount suit. Despite statutory notices and acknowledgments of liability, the respondent failed to pay. Ex parte proceedings were conducted, and evidence was presented, including the respondent's admission of the due amount. However, the court noted that reliance solely on a running account for a winding up petition was not appropriate, as per Section 34 of the Evidence Act and the decision in Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. The court emphasized that a winding up petition based on a running account is not suitable and that liability must be proven for each entry in the books of account.
  
  Issue 2: Maintainability of Winding Up Petition
  The court highlighted that the basis of the current petition, the running account, was not the subject of previous court decisions. It was noted that the Division Bench decision did not address the specific issue of the running account's suitability for a winding up petition. Referring to the Supreme Court's stance in Chandradhar Goswami case, it was concluded that proving each entry in the books of account is not feasible in a summary procedure under section 433 of the Companies Act. The court ruled that a civil suit, not a winding up petition, was the appropriate remedy for the petitioner in this case.
  
  In conclusion, the court found the winding up petition not maintainable due to the reliance on a running account and directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy through a civil suit if deemed necessary.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 187
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the amount along with interest claimed in the petition is due from the respondent?
  2. Whether the present petition is within limitation?
  3. Relief sought.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The claim petition was filed under section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, by the official liquidator of a company in liquidation to recover the unpaid called amount with interest from the respondent. The company was engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, and hiring out various items. The respondent denied liability, claiming no supporting documents were attached to the petition. Evidence presented, including accounts and witness testimonies, established that the respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 20,400 from the company, with Rs. 16,245 still outstanding. The respondent's defense of only participating in a "committee" was refuted, and it was concluded that the amount was due, and the company had proven its case.
  
  Issue 2:
  The respondent argued that the petition was time-barred, as it was filed in 1992, beyond the limitation period. However, the court analyzed the provisions of section 458A of the Companies Act, which excludes certain time periods in computing limitation for suits related to winding up proceedings. Relying on precedents from Unico Trading and Chit Funds (India) P. Ltd. v. S.H. Lohati and New Kerala Roadways P. Ltd. v. K.K. Nanu, the court held that the petition was within limitation. The exclusion of time under section 458A, along with the three-year period under article 137 of the Limitation Act, rendered the petition timely.
  
  Relief:
  The court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 16,245 along with interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the last transaction date. No evidence was presented regarding the agreed rate of interest, so the court determined the rate based on the prevailing circumstances in 1983. Additionally, no costs were awarded in the case.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records and adhering to statutory limitations in company liquidation proceedings.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 182
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the suit in the trial court.
  2. Whether the trial court's order was a speaking order.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  Re. Contention No. 1:
  
  The defendants contended that the trial court's order was not a speaking order, asserting that no detailed order was made on September 29, 1993, except the one in the order sheet. The trial court's order sheet stated, "Order on I. A. Nos. 1 to 3: Pronounced in open court," and mentioned a detailed order allowing I. A. Nos. 1 and 2 and rejecting I. A. No. 3. The defendants argued that they were not provided with a certified copy of the detailed order. However, the plaintiff's counsel produced a certified copy of the detailed order during the appeals. The court noted that the defendants did not specifically challenge the trial court's statement about a detailed order in their grounds of appeal. The court emphasized the presumption that statements of fact in judgments and orders are correctly recorded and that the legal requirements have been complied with by those discharging public functions. The court concluded that the trial judge had indeed made a detailed speaking order on September 29, 1993.
  
  Re. Contention No. 2:
  
  The defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable in the trial court and that the plaintiff should have invoked the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 10 and 10E of the Companies Act. They contended that the plaintiff's grievances related to the removal and election of directors, which are matters specifically provided for under the Act and should be addressed through the forum created by the Act. The court examined whether the right to elect or remove directors is a special right created by the statute or an inherent right of shareholders. It concluded that the right to participate in the election or removal of directors is an inherent right of shareholders and not a special right created by the statute. The court noted that sections 257 and 284 of the Act regulate the exercise of this right but do not provide an exclusive jurisdiction for its enforcement. The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd., which affirmed that every shareholder has the right to call an extraordinary general meeting and move resolutions for the removal or appointment of directors. The court concluded that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff to enforce his individual right as a shareholder was maintainable and that the jurisdiction of civil courts was not excluded by the Companies Act.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the trial court had made a detailed speaking order and that the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable. The civil revision petition was dismissed.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 172
  

  Dismissal of frivolous complaints - Appellants claimed relief and compensation for delay in issuing unit certificates of Master-gain-1992 Scheme purchased from UTI - District Forum allowed interest for a specified period - Whether appellants' appeal seeking further raise in quantum of relief had any merit or adequate foundation in absence of meaningful evidence led by them to establish precise quantum of their claim - Held, no

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 166
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Rule 57F(4)(c) regarding remission of duty on waste arising from processing of inputs.
  2. Determination of whether batteries becoming unusable due to long storage qualify as waste under Rule 57F(4)(c).
  3. Consideration of whether batteries used in the manufacturing process are eligible for remission of duty.
  4. Analysis of whether batteries, once deemed unusable, can be classified as waste under the MODVAT Scheme.
  5. Evaluation of the lower appellate authority's decision and the need for further evidence regarding the usage of batteries in the manufacturing process.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved a dispute regarding the remission of duty on batteries used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. The Revenue challenged the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras' decision to allow remission of duty under Rule 57F(4)(c) based on the batteries becoming unusable due to long storage. The Collector (Appeal) held that the batteries qualified as waste arising during the manufacturing process and were eligible for duty remission. The appellant-Collector argued that the batteries were the inputs themselves and not waste arising from processing, thus not covered under Rule 57F(4). The Tribunal noted the precedent set by the Supreme Court and previous cases regarding the eligibility of certain components as inputs. The Tribunal observed that the lower authority failed to provide evidence of the batteries' actual usage in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision and remanded the matter for further adjudication.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 57F(4) which govern the disposal of waste arising from processed inputs. It highlighted the requirement for waste to be a byproduct of the processing of inputs for duty remission under the rule. The Tribunal scrutinized the nature of batteries as inputs in the manufacturing process and the MODVAT Scheme's applicability to components like batteries. It emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of the MODVAT Scheme to cover all inputs, including components used in the final product. The Tribunal concluded that if an input becomes defective or unusable due to its use in the final product, it should be considered waste. However, the Tribunal found a lack of evidence supporting the actual usage of batteries in the manufacturing process, leading to the decision to remand the case for further examination.
  
  In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of Rule 57F(4)(c) regarding duty remission on waste arising from processed inputs, specifically batteries in this case. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of demonstrating the actual usage of batteries in the manufacturing process to determine their eligibility for duty remission as waste. The decision highlighted the importance of providing evidence to support claims of waste arising from the manufacturing process and underscored the need for a comprehensive evaluation before granting duty remission based on such claims.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 165
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the appellant contravened Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules by utilizing Modvat credit for payment of duty without declaring certain cables as finished goods.
  2. Whether the demand for payment of duty in cash through PLA for cables complete cleared as spare parts is justified.
  3. Whether the recovery of Modvat credit wrongly taken is time-barred.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of Miner's cap lamps, who used cables as inputs and sent them to job workers to be cut and fixed with connectors. These cables, known as 'cables complete,' were consumed in manufacturing final products and sold as spares. The lower authority alleged that the appellant contravened Rule 57G by not declaring these cables complete as finished goods for input cables. The Collector (Appeals) noted that while the appellant had not declared the cables complete as final products under Modvat Rules, they had filed classification lists and price lists for the item, clearing them on duty payment through RG 23A Part II. The lower authority's demand for duty payment through PLA instead of RG 23A Part II was challenged, arguing that the duty payment through Modvat credit was valid and legal. The order emphasized that there was no suppression or mis-declaration by the appellant, and the authorities were aware of the duty payment method. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contravention of Rule 57G and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.
  
  Issue 2:
  Regarding the demand for payment of duty in cash through PLA for cables complete cleared as spare parts, the appellant had paid duty using Modvat credit through RG 23A Part II. The lower authority contended that since the cables complete were not declared as finished products under Rule 57G, duty payment should have been in cash or through PLA. The Tribunal noted that the authorities were aware of the appellant's clearance of cables complete and their duty payment method. It was concluded that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and hence, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A could not be applied for duty recovery. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal on this issue and dismissed it.
  
  Issue 3:
  The question of the recovery of Modvat credit wrongly taken was raised, with the appellant arguing that there was no limitation provided under Rule 57-I for such recovery. The Tribunal referred to precedents, including a Supreme Court case and a High Court decision, to establish that a reasonable period of limitation should apply in the absence of specific provisions. It was held that recovery of Modvat credit wrongly taken was maintainable within a reasonable period. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's order in this regard.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all issues, finding no merit in the contentions raised and ruling in favor of the appellant in each instance.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 164
  
  Issues:
  1. Withdrawal of Modvat facility for aerated waters under Chapter 2201.11 and 2201.12.
  2. Recovery of Modvat credit taken and utilized for inputs still in stock post-withdrawal.
  3. Interpretation of Rule 57F(1) and Rule 57-I(2) regarding utilization and payment of duty on inputs.
  4. Applicability of previous case law and Tribunal decisions on similar matters.
  5. Examination of inputs covered by Modvat scheme and duty recovery upon non-compliance.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras involved the withdrawal of Modvat facility for aerated waters falling under specific chapters, leading to a dispute over the recovery of Modvat credit taken and utilized for inputs that were still in stock post-withdrawal. The Collector (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the Respondents, stating that the Modvat credit had been correctly taken and utilized, thus rejecting the Revenue's claim for recovery.
  
  The Revenue contended that since the inputs were not used in the manufacture of the final product, the Modvat credit should not have been availed or utilized. They argued a contravention of Rule 57F(1) and Rule 57A, emphasizing that the inputs were not utilized as specified under the rules due to the withdrawal of Modvat facility for aerated waters post-stock availability.
  
  On the other hand, the Respondent's Consultant relied on a Tribunal decision in a similar case, emphasizing that once the conditions for taking input credit were met, and the credit utilized as per Rule 57F, no fault could be found in the utilization of credit. The Tribunal held that there was no provision for recovery of Modvat credit upon withdrawal of the facility, and the inputs should be treated as the manufacture of the Respondent's factory, subject to duty upon clearance for home consumption.
  
  The Tribunal, following the precedent set in a previous case, concluded that the recovery of Modvat credit for inputs in stock as of the withdrawal date was not warranted. They highlighted the importance of examining whether the inputs were still covered by the Modvat scheme and emphasized the duty recovery upon utilization in the specified finished product as per Rule 57A.
  
  In essence, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the Modvat credit had been correctly taken and utilized by the Respondents. They directed the Revenue to demand duty on the inputs upon utilization post-withdrawal of the Modvat facility, in accordance with Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The judgment emphasized the need for duty payment on inputs cleared for home consumption, treating them as the manufacture of the Respondent's factory.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 163
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of scooter parts called studs.
  2. Determination of the manufacturer.
  3. Applicability of processes like heat treatment, phosphatising, and chrome plating as manufacturing.
  4. Classification under the appropriate Central Excise Tariff.
  
  Summary of Judgment:
  
  1. Classification of Scooter Parts Called Studs:
  The primary issue in all appeals is the classification of scooter parts called studs. The Assistant Collector classified the goods as bolts and nuts under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff (CET), which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal confirmed this classification, stating that the studs have a fastening function, which falls under Item 52 CET rather than the residuary Item 68 CET.
  
  2. Determination of the Manufacturer:
  The Assistant Collector held that the appellants were the manufacturers of the studs because they supplied the raw materials and specified the manufacturing process to job workers. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the job workers acted as hired labor and the property in the goods remained with the appellants throughout the process. This made the appellants the manufacturers under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  
  3. Applicability of Processes as Manufacturing:
  The appellants argued that processes like heat treatment, phosphatising, and chrome plating do not amount to manufacturing. However, the Tribunal found that these processes were essential for making the studs usable and marketable, thus constituting manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The processes were deemed incidental and ancillary to the completion of the fully finished studs.
  
  4. Classification Under the Appropriate Central Excise Tariff:
  For the period before 1-3-1986, the Tribunal upheld the classification of studs under Item 52 CET. However, for the period from 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986, covered by Appeal No. E/4098/89-D, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for re-determination under the new Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which is aligned with the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN). The Collector (Appeals) was directed to consider the appellants' claim for classification under Heading 87.14 as parts and accessories of motorcycles, including scooters, and to provide a finding with reference to the provisions of the new tariff.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities for the appeals concerning the period before 1-3-1986, confirming the classification of studs under Item 52 CET and recognizing the appellants as manufacturers. For the period from 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986, the case was remanded for re-determination under the new Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 162
  
  Issues:
  - Eligibility of Modvat credit for specific items used in the manufacturing process
  - Interpretation of the usage of steam in relation to the manufacturing of final products
  - Consideration of time bar aspect in the demand for reversal of credit
  - Nexus between chemicals used in water treatment for steam generation and manufacturing processes
  - Determination of Modvat benefit for chemicals used in power generation through turbines
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involves two appeals concerning the eligibility of Modvat credit for certain items used in the manufacturing process. The appeals revolve around the issue of whether Hydrochloric acid, Sulphuric Acid, Caustic soda lye and flakes, and synthetic resins are eligible for Modvat credit. These items are used for demineralization of water before it is pumped into boilers for steam production, which is further utilized in the manufacturing of soda ash, sodium bicarbonate, and caustic soda. The lower authorities had disallowed the Modvat credit, citing that the steam generated, which is the final product, is exempt from Central Excise duty.
  
  The appellant argued that since steam is an intermediate product and is used in various manufacturing processes, the benefit of Rule 57D should be available. They contended that the steam generated is integral to the manufacturing processes of the final products. On the other hand, the Respondent emphasized that the chemicals are necessary only for water purification to prevent scale formation in the boiler during steam generation. They also highlighted that a part of the steam is used for power generation and not directly in the manufacturing processes.
  
  After considering the factual position and legal arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal held that chemicals used in water treatment directly for manufacturing processes such as filtration, distillation, and evaporation are eligible for Modvat credit. However, chemicals used in steam generation through turbines for power generation were not considered to have a nexus with the manufacturing processes of the final products. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of determining the percentage of steam used directly in manufacturing processes to ensure accurate Modvat credit allocation.
  
  The Tribunal also addressed the time bar aspect, restricting any demand for reversal of credit to a period of six months prior to the receipt of the show cause notice. It was noted that the chemicals used for obtaining soft water necessary for steam generation should not be equated with maintenance-related materials like anticorrosion paints or lubricants.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the Assistant Collector, limiting the demand for duty paid on chemicals used in steam production to the usage in turbines for power generation. They directed that Modvat credit should be granted for the part of steam directly utilized in the manufacturing processes other than in turbines.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 161
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming reversal of MODVAT Credit and imposition of personal penalty.
  - Compliance with MODVAT Rules regarding credit availment without written approval.
  - Eligibility for MODVAT Credit on inputs declared under Rule 57G.
  - Verification of inputs by the department for credit availment.
  - Granting waiver of pre-deposit for further verification by Assistant Collector.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the reversal of MODVAT Credit and imposition of a personal penalty by the Assistant Collector. The appellants opted for the MODVAT Scheme and filed a declaration under Rule 57G, along with an application under Rule 57H for credit availment on inputs in stock. The department objected to the credit availment without written approval, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The appellants argued compliance with MODVAT Rules and cited a Tribunal decision in support. The Advocate for the appellants emphasized that the inputs were verified by authorities and were utilized for manufacturing excisable products, referencing a previous Tribunal decision where similar credit was allowed.
  
  The JDR supported the order, alleging a violation of Rules regarding credit availment without approval. The Tribunal noted that the appellants were eligible for MODVAT Credit on declared inputs and had applied for credit on the same day as the declaration. While the appellants availed credit without written approval, it was deemed that they were eligible for it. However, there was a lack of material to show proper verification of inputs. The Tribunal decided to allow the Assistant Collector to re-examine the issue, verify records, and grant credit for eligible inputs. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appellants were deemed eligible for MODVAT Credit on inputs as of the declaration date, subject to verification by the Assistant Collector.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit for further verification by the Assistant Collector and held the appellants eligible for MODVAT Credit on inputs declared under Rule 57G. The decision emphasized the need for proper verification by the department and directed the Assistant Collector to scrutinize records and sanction credit for inputs proven to be in stock on the declaration date.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 160
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Notification No. 77/90 dated 23-3-1990 for exemption on imported refractory bricks; Jurisdiction of Collector in denying exemption; Consideration of expert technical opinion; Prima facie case for granting stay under Section 129E of the Customs Act; Authority's jurisdiction based on consent; Refund of duty during appeal; Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved a stay application under Section 129E of the Customs Act for the waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 16,67,936. The dispute arose from the interpretation of Notification No. 77/90 dated 23-3-1990 regarding the classification of refractory bricks imported for an AOD furnace. The applicants claimed the bricks were eligible for exemption under Chapter Heading 69.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, relying on a previous Tribunal decision. The Collector denied the exemption, stating the AOD convertor was not an industrial furnace, leading to the duty dispute.
  
  The advocate for the applicants argued that the Collector's decision exceeded jurisdiction as a previous decision by an Additional Collector allowed the exemption. He cited relevant case law to support the argument that the denial of exemption was unjustified. The advocate emphasized the importance of expert technical opinion and criticized the Collector for not considering it adequately, citing precedents where expert opinions were crucial in similar cases.
  
  The revenue's representative countered, stating that the Additional Collector's remarks were not a binding decision, and the subsequent adjudication by the Collector was valid. She argued that past practice did not prevent authorities from correcting mistakes, emphasizing the Collector's consideration of expert opinion. The revenue opposed granting a stay, asserting that no prima facie case was established for relief.
  
  After considering both arguments, the Tribunal found no strong prima facie case in favor of the applicants for granting the relief sought. The Tribunal clarified that under Section 129E of the Customs Act, the question of waiving pre-deposit did not arise since the duty had already been paid. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application, noting that no extraordinary circumstances warranted granting the relief requested during the appeal process.
  
  The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court's direction for expedited disposal of the matter was to be followed, scheduling the appeal for regular hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that the High Court did not direct dispensing with pre-deposit but stated that if such dispensation occurred, the respondents would refund the amount. The Tribunal concluded that the inherent jurisdiction to grant relief during the appeal was not applicable in this case, leading to the dismissal of the stay application.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 159
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against rejection of Modvat Credit on duty paid inputs based on certificates issued by a Public Sector Undertaking.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeals involved the rejection of Modvat Credit on duty paid inputs by the authorities due to the non-acceptance of certificates issued by a Public Sector Undertaking, Hindustan Copper Ltd., as evidence of payment of excise duty. The main contention was whether the certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd. were acceptable under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  2. The appellants manufactured bare Copper Wires using duty paid inputs received from Hindustan Copper Ltd. The authorities rejected the Modvat Credit claim citing the absence of circular/instruction by the Central Board of Excise and Customs regarding the acceptance of certificates issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd. The appellants argued that the certificates were issued in compliance with a Circular by CBEC under Rule 57G(2) and should have been accepted by the authorities.
  
  3. The consultant for the appellants highlighted that the certificates and challans issued by Hindustan Copper Ltd. evidenced the payment of duty, but the authorities did not accept them. The consultant argued that the denial of Modvat credit based on technicalities when the payment of duty and utilization of inputs were not in doubt was unjust. Reference was made to previous judgments emphasizing that procedural lapses should not be a reason to deny credit if the receipt and utilization of duty paid goods were established.
  
  4. The respondent, represented by the SDR, contended that Rule 57G(2) mandated the acceptance of inputs under specific documents like Gate Pass or AR 1 for claiming credit. The absence of a directive from CBEC regarding the acceptance of certificates from Hindustan Copper Ltd. justified the rejection of Modvat Credit by the lower authorities.
  
  5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, referred to a clarification by CBEC stating that certificates issued by Public Sector Undertakings should be treated as duty paying documents for availing credit under Rule 57A. As Hindustan Copper Ltd. was a Public Sector Undertaking and the clarification was not disputed by the department, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellant in accordance with the law.

  ---

• 1993 (11) TMI 158
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of MODVAT declaration for perfumes under different Tariff classifications.
  2. Dispute regarding eligibility for MODVAT Credit based on declaration discrepancies.
  3. Interpretation of Tariff classifications for odiferous substances and perfumes.
  4. Compliance with Central Excise Rules in filing MODVAT declarations.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the classification of perfumes for MODVAT Credit. The appellants, engaged in soap manufacturing, filed a MODVAT declaration with perfumes classified under Chapter Heading 3303.00. However, some gate passes indicated perfumes under Chapter Heading 3302.90, leading to an audit objection. A supplementary declaration was filed to rectify this discrepancy. The Assistant Collector imposed duty demands for certain periods, which were upheld by the Collector (Appeals), prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.
  
  The appellants argued that both declarations included perfumes, and the change in Tariff classification should not invalidate the declarations. They contended that all odiferous substances, including perfumes, were covered under their understanding. On the other hand, the Respondent highlighted the Collector (Appeals) findings that odiferous substances differ from perfumes based on Tariff classifications, asserting the ineligibility for MODVAT Credit.
  
  After considering both arguments, the Tribunal examined the gate passes and declarations. Despite the Tariff classification differences, the Tribunal found that the appellants consistently described the inputs as "perfume." They concluded that the appellants intended to include all odiferous substances, making them eligible for MODVAT Credit under both Tariff classifications. The Tribunal emphasized that the substantive benefit should not be denied due to Tariff discrepancies, as long as both classifications are eligible for MODVAT Credit.
  
  Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the supplementary declaration, even if filed in the Range Office, should have been transmitted to the Assistant Collector for proper acknowledgment. While doubts were raised about the validity of the second declaration, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal based on the validity of the first declaration alone. They refrained from making a final judgment on the second declaration's validity and set aside the demands for reversal of MODVAT Credit.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that they complied with the MODVAT declaration requirements under Central Excise Rules for perfumes and odiferous substances. The decision emphasized the importance of intent and consistency in declarations, prioritizing substantive benefit over technical discrepancies in Tariff classifications.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 149