|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 460 Records
-
1997 (1) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Catheters - Bill of Entry - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ant Collector of Customs) and submitted that if really the payment of the duty is under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek redress to such alternative remedy as it may advise. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on another decision reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (Union of India v. ITC Limited) in support of the above contention. 13.However, I am not going to consider and grant the prayer of refund here in these writ petitions. I direct the petitioners to file applications before the Assistant Collector of Customs (Imports), Madras who is respondent 3 herein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Assistant Collector in turn should dispose of the applications in accordance with law as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Act within two months thereafter, after giving opportunities to the petitioners. These writ petitions are ordered as above. However, there will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions.
-
1997 (1) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t Standing Counsel for the applicant. The respondent has not entered appearance through any counsel to have their say in the matter. 4. We find that the issue that has been referred to for our consideration is no longer res integra and the matter is covered by more than one decision of the Apex Court and the larger Bench of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Samrat International (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 and the subsequent decision 1991 (55) E.L.T. 592 which came to be rendered by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal under the Act after considering not only the decision of the Apex Court noticed supra, but also several other judgments, We have to answer the question referred to us in the negative and hold that the provisional assessment made should for all purposes to be treated as provisional and not necessarily provisional in respect of the particular ground considered No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Adjudication - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... t of certificate of exemption about remaining part of quantity of production after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this behalf, in conformity with law and within a period of four months from today. 8.If the ultimate decision of respondent No. 3 goes against the petitioner, the petitioner shall have liberty to challenge the decision before appropriate forum. 9.In view of this direction, the petitioner may make appropriate prayer before the appellate authority as also before the adjudicating authority to keep the appeal and the original matter pending, till decision is rendered by the respondent No. 3 on the question of certificate of exemption as noted above. The appellate authority as also the adjudicating authority in that event shall consider the request in accordance with law. 10.Thus this petition stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1997 (1) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Modvat credit - Reversal - Accounts - PLA - Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... richment and cannot be conceived of in the light of the rules on the subject. I am, therefore, of the view that the debit entries made by the petitioner for reversing the Modvat credit availed by it were in compliance of its legal obligation and it cannot be said that by making such entries the petitioner has made any illegal payment to the Union of India. On the other hand, the net result is that the Union of India has received only what it was justly entitled to receive i.e. the duty on the inputs. What was exempt from excise duty was only the final product and not the inputs. 12.In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the petitioner s claim for refund and it was patently barred by time as well. It is not necessary in the circumstances of the case to deal with the plea of alternative remedy because that is not a complete bar to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BENCH
Prosecution - Customs - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... building, chattels, shares, debts and in fact everything that has a money value in the market and comes within the purview of any taxing statute. 8.As stated above since these two vehicles were seized and confiscated to the Government as they belong to the Central Government, no tax as provided under the State Act be levied on these vehicles. That being the case, the respondent could not have demanded tax from the petitioner. Therefore the question of launching the prosecution does not arise. 9.For the foregoing reasons I hold that no offence is committed by the petitioner and if the said prosecution is allowed to continue it would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore this Court will have to interfere under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. Accordingly these petitions are allowed. The entire proceedings pending in C.C. Nos. 1931/92 to 1961/92 questioned in Criminal Petition Numbers 1498/94 to 1528/94 respectively are quashed and consequently the order issuing NBW is set aside.
-
1997 (1) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund and Demand ... ... ... ... ..... r Section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal hold that Section 51(2) of the Finance Act, 1982 does not have the effect of overriding or superceding by taking away the effect of other Section 11A or 11B of the Act. Not satisfied, the reference in question came to be made at the instance of the revenue. 3. Heard the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondent. The matter in issue is not res integra and is covered by an authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the decision of this Court in J.K. Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I. 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.) wherein the Apex Court held the same view is that of the Tribunal in this case. In view of the above, the question referred to us for our decision is answered in the affirmative by holding that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 has no overriding effect or could not supercede the provisions contained in Section 11A or 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR BENCH
Recovery of amount ... ... ... ... ..... then only the recoveries are effected. It is, therefore, necessary for the respondents to devise a fair procedure so that grievance of such assessee is redressed and no amounts are recovered by coercive process before the application for exemption from the condition of pre-deposit is disposed of. 4A. In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct that the application for exemption from pre-deposit and stay pending before the Commissioner of Appeals shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner before the concerned Appellate Authority and recovery of the amount involved in the appeal shall not be effected till the disposal of the application for exemption from pre-deposit and stay. If, in the meanwhile, recovery of amount has already been effected, the appeal itself shall be disposed of within two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Appellate Authority.
-
1997 (1) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ctive to the Department and not by itself is a reason or ground for nullifying the finding of guilt recorded concurrently by the adjudicating Authority and also the Tribunal. It is obvious from the order of the very Tribunal that the omission to make such fuller investigation would have been desirable would not absolve the appellant to prove not only the purchase of the ornaments from M/s. D.D. Vernekar and Bros. on 22-10-1981 but also precisely to correlate the same with the items under seizure. 7.In the light of the above concurrent findings of fact, we do not consider that the order of adjudicating Authority as confirmed by the Tribunal calls for any interference or that it stood vitiated. The question referred for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative holding that the order of confiscation and penalty was not vitiated due to the Department itself not carrying out a fuller investigation for the scrutiny of bills and accounts of M/s. D.D. Vernekar and Bros.
-
1997 (1) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - Limitation - Relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... evenue, subsequently realising apparently the justness of the claim has resolved by its decision in Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Revenue and Customs/F. No. 387/671/8, AU dated 3-4-1987 withdrawing the appeals filed by the Revenue before the Apex Court thereby conceding to the request of assessees in similar circumstances as the one under our consideration. 3. After hearing the learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the applicant, Mr. K. Jayachandran, and Mr. S. Shanmugam, learned Counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that in the light of the factual details and developments stated supra, the question referred in the above two cases for our decision has to be answered in the affirmative by holding that the date of declaration in the prescribed form for determination of base clearance will be the relevant date for purpose of clearance under refund under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondents should pay duty on the plain Flat Sheets of Iron and Steel during the period from 1-8-1983 to 16-3-1985 at the rates applicable under T. I. 25 (13) first and after corrugation under T.I. 68?
Held that:- The appeal that was filed on 3rd July, 1985, pursuant to the view taken on 28th May, 1985, related only to the classification of the corrugated sheets. In so far as duty for the period November, 1984, to 16th March, 1985, was concerned, the appellants had already been issued with a show cause-cum-demand notice on 29th May, 1985, and the procedings thereunder were and are still pending. In the appeal the Collector was within jurisdiction in so far as he held that the order dated 31st July, 1984, classifying the corrugated sheets was incorrect but, his further direction was not. The scope of the appeal did not relate to a demand for duty for the period 1st August, 1983 to 16th March, 1985, nor was there a claim that duty should be paid first under Tariff Item 25(13) on plain sheets and again, after their corrugation, under Tariff Item 68.
The appeals must, therefore, be allowed and the impugned orders of the Collector (Appeals) set aside in so far as they direct payment of duty on plain flat sheets of iron and steel first at the rate applicable under T.I. 25 and again, after corrugation, under T.I. 68. The demands for duty in accordance with these orders must also be set aside.
-
1997 (1) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT
Excisable goods - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... refunded under the provisions of Section 5. 5. As we have pointed out, the goods were at all relevant times excisable. For the period prior to 27th February, 1982, the rate of duty thereon was nil. Thereafter, until 21st April, 1982, the effective rate of duty was 8 per cent. ad valorem and after 21st April, 1982, the rate of duty was again nil. During the period 28th February, 1982 to 21st April, 1982, the rate of duty was 8 per cent. ad valorem by reason of an exemption Notification issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. The decision in Vazir Sultan s case squarely applies, as was observed by this Court when it allowed the appeal of the Revenue in the similar case of M/s. Jindal Paper and Plastic Limited. The provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, have no application. 6. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside. The refund application made by the respondents is rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 90 - SC ORDER
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... und claim. 2. In the light of the law declared in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) 1996 (9) SCALE 457 this appeal preferred by the revenue is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed herewith. The refund claim is dismissed as barred by time. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 89 - SC ORDER
Teleprinter rolls - Refund of duty ... ... ... ... ..... inting and writing paper which has already borne duty under Tariff Item No. 17(1) of Central Excise Tariff . 2. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to pronounce upon the merits of this case. We direct that if the teleprinter rolls are manufactured out of duty-paid printing paper, no further excise duty is payable by them. 3. So far as the question of refund is concerned, the matter is covered by the judgment of the larger Constitution Bench in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) 1996 (9) SCALE 457 and shall be dealt with accordingly as and when any such claim is made. 4. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Excess Production Rebate - Sugar ... ... ... ... ..... much upon the exigibility to duty of the product and inasmuch as by virtue of the export of a major portion of the sugar produced in excess, the said sugar was not subjected to actual liability and it was not assessed to excise duty, the question of claiming rebate does not arise at all and consequently, the Notification will have no application to the claim made. The view taken by the Tribunal therefore, in our view, does not suffer from any infirmity, consequently, we answer question No.1 in the affirmative holding that the applicability of Notification No. 108 under Section 78(c) dated 28-4-1978 would depend and the question of allowing rebate would arise only if excess sugar is produced, that would suffer assessment and levy of excise duty and not otherwise. As for question No. 2, we hold that the quantum of exemption would be limited by the actual quantum of duty levied and paid on the excess sugar determined and not merely on the mere excess production alone. No costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal to Supreme Court - Compounded levy - Number of workers - SSI exemption - Rectification of mistake
-
1997 (1) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT
Whether principle of natural justice have been violated?
Held that:- The appellants, by their letter dated 9-1-1985, had requested the authorities to furnish the certified copy of the check list prepared at the time of the raid with a view to enabling them to check and verify the particulars. In reply thereto, the Income Tax Officer expressed his inability to provide the required documents. We have extracted the passage from his reply in the earlier part of this judgment. This, contends the learned counsel for the appellants, severely prejudiced the appellants' right to offer a proper explanation and to that extent the principle of natural justice stood violated. We fail to appreciate why the authorities could not furnish the required information to the appellants. To say that the documents are not readily available with the officer, is no ground to deny vital information to a person who is to be visited with a penalty under the Act. We are of the view that the failure to supply this important piece of information to the appellants has prejudiced the appellants and to that extant, we agree with Mr. Diwan that the principle of natural justice would stand violated. Appeal allowed.
-
1997 (1) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Phenolic resin - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... here the weight of the solvent exceeds 50 of the weight of the solution, the solution of artificial or synthetic resin in volatile organic solvents are excluded from the scope of the tariff entry. It is, however, not necessary to advert to this argument except to notice that they only seem to explain the tariff entry. 11.It is also pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the judgment in this case, the tariff item has been specially amended to include the solution of resin within the purview of the item which would tend to show that it was not so earlier. It is not necessary to advert to this argument, since we have affirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge that the aqueous solution of resin produced by the respondents is an intermediate product and not resin in liquid form, which was assessable to excise duty at the relevant time. 12.The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. The Bank guarantee given by the respondents would stand discharged.
-
1997 (1) TMI 84 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ference. There is also nothing on the record to show that in commercial parlance a rotor and an armature have precise and definite meanings and are not treated as identical. Even if a rotor and an armature are not taken to be one and the same commodity, they perform the similar function and have the same characteristics and, therefore, if the authorities and the Tribunal concluded that armatures also come within the meaning of rotors, we see no reason to interfere. 2. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (1) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal before the CEGAT should have been considered on this basis. 2. It appears that the contention based on Section 35A(5) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, at least in this form was not raised before the Tribunal since it does not find any mention in the Tribunal s order. However, the point being one of law, the same is permitted to be raised. The decision on the question based on Section 35A(5) would depend on certain facts and, therefore, it is appropriate that the point is considered in the first instance by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Tribunal for this purpose. 3. For the above reason, we set aside the Tribunal s order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh the question whether the appeal filed in the Tribunal is within time and if not, whether a ground has been made out for condonation of delay, if any, in the filing of that appeal with advertance to the above observations. 4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1997 (1) TMI 82 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court - New/Different plea - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ption that the insurance charges incurred were only Rs. 17.45/-. The extra amount was claimed on account of over head charges which the Tribunal held rightly are not liable to be deducted. We, therefore, cannot allow Mr. Salve to raise the said new question. We do not express any opinion on the question of levy of penalty. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
....
|
