|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 569 Records
-
1997 (7) TMI 605
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 37(6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 on the driver of a truck carrying scrap.
2. Interpretation of section 37(6) regarding the imposition of penalty on the driver or the owner of the goods carriers.
3. Requirement of producing proper and genuine documents under section 37(6) to avoid penalty.
4. Imposition of penalty under section 37(6) when goods are not in transit but going for weighment.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the imposition of a penalty under section 37(6) of the Act on the driver of a truck carrying scrap. The driver failed to produce relevant documents during roadside checking, leading to the assumption of an attempt to evade tax. The court upheld the penalty, considering the circumstances where neither the driver nor the owner of the goods provided necessary documents, justifying the imposition of the penalty.
2. The interpretation of section 37(6) was crucial in determining whether the penalty could be levied on the driver or the owner of the goods carriers. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's view and emphasized that the penalty could only be imposed on the owner if their identity was disclosed. In this case, as the identity of the selling and purchasing dealers was known, the authorities should have issued a notice to the owner for potential penalty, rather than penalizing the driver.
3. The judgment highlighted the importance of producing proper and genuine documents under section 37(6) to avoid penalties. The failure of the assessee and the owner of the goods to provide relevant documents strengthened the Assessing Authority's assumption of tax evasion. The onus was on the assessee to produce necessary documents, and the lack of compliance justified the penalty imposition.
4. Lastly, the court considered the scenario where goods were not in transit but going for weighment. The assessee's failure to produce genuine documents indicating the purpose of transporting the goods for weighment led to the affirmation of the penalty imposition. Merely presenting a chit was deemed insufficient to demonstrate the goods' intended purpose, reinforcing the need for proper documentation to avoid penalties.
In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the imposition of penalties under section 37(6) of the Act, emphasizing the significance of producing genuine documents and correctly attributing penalties to the responsible parties based on the provisions of the law.
-
1997 (7) TMI 604
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "electrical goods" under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, specifically in relation to battery cells and their classification under entry 17 of Schedule "A".
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an assessment of sales tax on battery cells by the Excise and Taxation Officer at a higher rate of 10%, based on the categorization of battery cells as "electrical goods" under entry 17 of Schedule "A" of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee contended that battery cells should not be subjected to the higher tax rate as they did not fall under the category of "electrical goods" (paragraph 2).
The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner upheld the application of the higher tax rate, rejecting the assessee's argument that battery cells were not "electrical goods" but were covered by exceptions in entry 17 of Schedule "A" (paragraph 3).
The Tribunal, however, ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the exceptions specified in entry 17 of Schedule "A" which exempt certain items like electrical plants, equipment, and their accessories from the higher tax rate. The Tribunal's decision hinged on whether battery cells could be considered as equipment or accessories required for generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity (paragraph 4).
The court delved into the definition of "battery cells" and analyzed the term "electrical goods" based on precedents from other High Courts. It referenced cases from Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Allahabad, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts to ascertain the scope and interpretation of "electrical goods" in relation to various electrical components and accessories (paragraphs 5-10).
Furthermore, the court examined previous judgments related to the interpretation of entry 17 of Schedule "A" in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, particularly focusing on the classification of items like monoblock pumping sets and electric motors as not falling under the category of "electrical goods" (paragraphs 11-12).
Ultimately, the court concluded that battery cells should be considered as accessories to electrical goods rather than falling under the broader category of "electrical goods" based on their function of transmitting energy to electric equipment. As per entry 17 of Schedule "A", accessories to plants or equipment are exempted from being classified as "electrical goods," entitling battery cells to a lower tax rate (paragraphs 13-15).
Therefore, the court answered the question of law affirmatively, stating that battery cells are covered by exceptions in entry 17 of Schedule "A" and are not subject to the higher tax rate, resolving the reference in favor of the assessee.
-
1997 (7) TMI 603
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner to issue notice for revisional proceedings.
2. Interpretation of Section 22-A(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
3. Applicability of revisional powers when an order is subject to appeal.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner
The petitioner challenged the validity of a notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for revisional proceedings. The petitioner argued that the notice was without jurisdiction as it pertained to an order already under appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The crux of the issue lies in determining whether the Joint Commissioner had the authority to initiate revisional proceedings in such circumstances.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 22-A(3)
Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act outlines the revisional powers of the Commissioner and Joint Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner was in violation of Section 22-A(3), which restricts the exercise of revisional powers in certain situations. The interpretation of sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 22-A(3) was crucial in determining the legality of the notice.
Issue 3: Applicability of revisional powers
The judgment delves into the applicability of revisional powers when an order is subject to appeal. It clarifies that the bar against revisional powers is permanent if the order has been made the subject of an appeal before the Tribunal. The judgment draws parallels with a Supreme Court decision to emphasize that the entirety of the appellate order is open for scrutiny before the Tribunal, regardless of whether it is partly in favor of the assessee. This analysis sheds light on the comprehensive nature of the Tribunal's authority in reviewing orders under challenge.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned notice issued by the Joint Commissioner for revisional proceedings. The judgment highlighted the restrictions imposed by Section 22-A(3) and affirmed that revisional powers cannot be exercised when an order is already under appeal before the Tribunal. The detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and legal precedents provided clarity on the jurisdictional limitations of the Joint Commissioner in initiating revisional proceedings.
-
1997 (7) TMI 602
Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether sugar candy falls within the ambit of entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Determination of tax liability on sugar candy based on statutory definitions and schedule entries.
3. Application of legal precedent from the Supreme Court regarding the classification of commodities made from sugar.
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether sugar candy, known as "kallusakkare," is exempt from tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The appellant, a registered dealer in sugar candy, challenged a communication from the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, contending that sugar candy should be exempt from tax under entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule. The Court examined the manufacturing process of sugar candy and noted that it contains over 90% sucrose, meeting the statutory definition of "sugar." This finding led to the conclusion that sugar candy falls under entry 31-B and is exempt from tax.
The Court delved into the relevant provisions of the State Act, specifically Section 5 for tax levy and Section 8 for exemptions. It compared the entries in the Second Schedule (S. No. 18A) and the Fifth Schedule (S. No. 31-B) to determine the tax applicability to sugar candy. By referencing the Central Act and the Tariff Act, which define "sugar" as having over 90% sucrose content, the Court established that sugar candy qualifies as "sugar" for taxation purposes. This interpretation led to the exemption of sugar candy from tax liability under the State Act.
Drawing on a Supreme Court precedent in the case of State of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers, the Court highlighted the broad definition of "sugar" encompassing various forms of sugar-based commodities. The precedent emphasized that statutory definitions may differ from common parlance and should be applied accordingly. By applying this precedent to the present case, the Court overturned the lower court's decision and declared that sugar candy is indeed covered by entry 31-B of the Fifth Schedule, thus exempt from tax. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ appeal and setting aside the impugned order, with no costs awarded.
In summary, the judgment clarified the classification of sugar candy under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, emphasizing statutory definitions and schedule entries. By aligning the composition of sugar candy with the definition of "sugar" and referencing legal precedents, the Court determined that sugar candy is exempt from tax liability.
-
1997 (7) TMI 601
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State Legislature to impose sales tax on "pan masala" and "gutka".
2. Legality of the tax rate exceeding 4% on these products.
3. Allegations of double taxation on "pan masala".
4. Exemption of "gutka" from taxation under the APGST Act.
5. Applicability of sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to "gutka".
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the State Legislature to Impose Sales Tax on "Pan Masala" and "Gutka":
The court examined whether the State Legislature had the competence to impose sales tax on "pan masala" and "gutka". The petitioner argued that "gutka" should be exempt since it is a tobacco product. The court, however, upheld the State Legislature's competence to impose the tax, noting that "pan masala" and "gutka" are distinct commercial commodities and that the State can levy taxes on them.
2. Legality of the Tax Rate Exceeding 4%:
The petitioner contended that the tax rate of 50 paise in a rupee on "pan masala" and "gutka" was exorbitant and violated sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which restricts the tax rate on declared goods to 4%. The court found that "gutka" does not fall under the declared goods listed in section 14(ix) of the CST Act. Therefore, the restriction of a maximum 4% tax rate does not apply to "gutka", and the higher tax rate imposed by the State Legislature was upheld.
3. Allegations of Double Taxation on "Pan Masala":
The petitioner argued that taxing "pan masala" amounted to double taxation since its ingredients were already taxed individually. The court rejected this contention, stating that once a new commercial product comes into existence from a combination of taxable goods, it is taxable under the APGST Act. The court cited previous judgments to support this view, affirming that the levy of sales tax on "pan masala" does not constitute double taxation.
4. Exemption of "Gutka" from Taxation under the APGST Act:
The petitioner claimed that "gutka" should be exempt from sales tax as it is a tobacco product listed in the Fourth Schedule of the APGST Act. The court examined the relevant provisions and concluded that "gutka" falls under the specific sub-head "pan masala" in Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and not under the general sub-head for "chewing tobacco" in Chapter 24. Since "gutka" does not suffer additional excise duty, it does not qualify for the exemption under the Fourth Schedule of the APGST Act.
5. Applicability of Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 to "Gutka":
The court analyzed whether sections 14 and 15 of the CST Act, which limit the tax rate on declared goods to 4%, applied to "gutka". It was determined that "gutka" does not fall within the sub-headings of declared goods under section 14(ix) of the CST Act. Consequently, the restrictions of section 15 do not apply, and the State Legislature's imposition of a 50 paise tax per rupee on "gutka" was deemed legal.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the State Legislature's competence to impose and regulate sales tax on "pan masala" and "gutka" at the specified rates. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims of double taxation and exemption for "gutka" under the APGST Act. The application for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court was also rejected, as the case did not involve a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of the Constitution.
-
1997 (7) TMI 600
Whether the Regulation would apply to transfer of Government land to a non-tribal?
Whether the Government can grant mining lease of the lands situated in scheduled area to a non-tribal?
Whether the leases are in violation of Section 2 of the FC Act?
Whether the leases are in violation of Environment Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the 'EP Act')?
Held that:- It is an admitted position that five enclosures comprise of 426 acres of land occupied by the tribals in those villages. Re-survey started in 1990 jointly by Revenue, Forest and Mining Departments and was completed and the report was made on August 2, 1990. Though 14 villages with five enclosures were notified as Borra reserved forest in GOMs No. 2997 F & A dated October 31 1,1966, they stood excluded from reserved forest area. Therefore, the lands in the enclosures being cultivated by the tribals are their patta lands and are entitled to get pattas by the concerned officers. It is conceded on behalf of the respondents that the Government have no power to grant mining leases for these lands situated within the enclosures.
It is seen from the evidence that the mining leases were granted by the State Government or were transferred and retransferred with the sanction of the State Government from private individuals to juristic persons, the partnership firms or companies. The lands with mining area are situated either in the reserved forest or forest land or within the scheduled area. Therefore, all the mining leases or renewals thereof are in violation of the Fifth Schedule. Equally, mining leases/renewals of mining leases by the, State Government are in violation of Regulation 3(1)(a) read with Section 3(2) of the Regulation and F.C. Act. Therefore, they are all void.
The State Government, therefore, is directed to ensure that all concerned industrialists, be they natural or juristic person stop forthwith mining operations within the scheduled area, except where the lease has been granted to the State Undertaking, i.e., A.P.S.M.D. Corporation; they should report compliance of this order to the Registry of this Court within six months of the receipt of this judgment. The lessees of mining leases are directed not to break fresh mines; however, in the meanwhile, they are entitled to remove the minerals already extracted and stocked in the reserved forest area within four months time from today. All concerned authorities are directed to ensure compliance thereof. Even the State Undertaking carrying the mining operations, would be subject to the regulations under the FC Act and EPA. It would be open to the State Government to organise Co-operative., Societies composed solely of the Scheduled Tribes to exploit mining operations within the scheduled area subject to the compliance of the FC Act and EPA.
The appeal of Samatha are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside and directions are issued accordingly.
-
1997 (7) TMI 599
Whether the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the Osmania University should be raised to 60 years when the University has fixed the age of superannuation of the teaching staff of the University at 60 years?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The decision of the High Court that when the age of the teaching staff of the University has been increased to 60 years the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff should also be changed in the similar manner in order to bring parity in the service conditions of the salaried staff of the University in obedience of the mandate under Section 38 (1) of the Act, is justified.
-
1997 (7) TMI 598
Issues:
Interpretation of section 7(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the power of the Commissioner to cancel a registration certificate on grounds other than specified in sub-section (6) or information outside of section 16.
Analysis:
The main issue in this appeal was whether the Commissioner had the authority to cancel the registration certificate of a firm based on grounds not listed in sub-section (6) of section 7 or information not covered under section 16 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellant had cancelled the registration certificate of the respondent-firm, Modern General Store, Jullundur City, on 1st October, 1962. The critical question revolved around the interpretation of sub-section (4) of section 7, which allowed the Commissioner to amend or cancel a certificate of registration based on information received under section 16 or from other sources. The court examined the language of the statute and concluded that the information mentioned in sub-section (4) must align with the details specified in section 16. The court rejected the appellant's argument that "otherwise received" encompassed information beyond what was required under section 16, emphasizing that such an interpretation would amount to rewriting the statute.
The appellant contended that the respondent-firm engaged in fraudulent activities by falsely showing sales to registered dealers under its registration certificate. However, the court held that the clear language of sub-section (4) of section 7 must be followed, and extraneous meanings cannot be attributed to the statute. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the law should not deviate from its explicit language to rectify fraudulent actions, as argued by the appellant. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the statutory provisions must be strictly construed as drafted without introducing new interpretations.
Additionally, it was acknowledged that the respondent-firm was not afforded adequate opportunity in both the proceedings under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act before adverse orders were issued. Consequently, the learned Single Judge rightfully quashed the orders against the respondent-firm due to the lack of proper opportunities provided during the proceedings. The court highlighted that this aspect of the case was not open to debate in the appeal due to the concession made during the initial hearing. Therefore, the court upheld the decision to quash the orders against the respondent-firm, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without any cost orders.
In a separate opinion, Justice Tuli concurred with the decision to dismiss the appeal, aligning with the reasoning and conclusions presented by the Chief Justice. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, affirming the quashing of the order cancelling the registration certificate of the respondent-firm.
-
1997 (7) TMI 597
Public Interest Litigation-Petition filed for rehabilitation of children of Prostitutes-Held, such children have right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation, to be part of the mainstream of social life without any stigma-Mahajan Committee Report workable at National level-Suggestions in Mahajan Committee Report regarding child development and care centres requires to be examined-Children of prostitutes and even child prostitutes to be treated as `neglected juveniles' as defined in Juvenile Justice Act-No stigma to be attached to such children-To be rescued from redlight areas and temporarily shifted to Juvenile Homes-Thereafter to be rehabilitated-Establishing Juvenile Homes- Of- ficers in charge of Juvenile Homes to protect the children in Juvenile Homes-Mandatory obligation of State-Constituting Juvenile Welfare Board- Rescue and rehabilitation operation to be kept under Department of Women and Child Development under Union Ministry of Human Resources-NGOs to be associated with the rehabilitation work-Union Minister of Welfare to constitute a Committee within one month for evolving suitable schemes and to submit report within three months thereafter-State Govern-ments to implement the Schemes-Permanent Committee of Secretaries to be constituted to review the progress of the implementation of the Schemes-Periodical progress report to be submitted to Supreme Court-Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
-
1997 (7) TMI 596
Issues:
- Denial of benefit of deem credit order for brass scraps
- Contravention of Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944
- Applicability of previous Tribunal decision on similar case
- Interpretation of Trade Notice No. 19/93 by the Collectorate of Kanpur
- Lack of evidence to prove duty paid on brass scrap
- Dismissal of appeal based on recognition of scrap as non-duty paid goods
Analysis:
The appellant filed an appeal against the denial of the benefit of deem credit order for brass scraps in the impugned order. The issue arose when the brass scrap generated from unserviceable household articles and machinery parts was considered non-duty payable, leading to the denial of Modvat credit. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing taps and cocks, availed the credit during a specific period but faced a Show Cause Notice alleging contravention of Rule 57G(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant's claim was based on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case, asserting entitlement to the credit under a specific order.
The Department, represented by the SDR, argued that the appellant failed to provide evidence of duty payment on the brass scrap. They relied on Trade Notice No. 19/93 issued by the Collectorate of Kanpur, which clarified that certain types of scrap, including broken machinery parts, were recognizable as non-duty paid goods. The Department contended that the appellant's claim was based on scrap not generated through conscious manufacturing activities, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
In the judgment, it was highlighted that the Show Cause Notice did not specifically mention the appellant availing credit on broken machinery parts or similar items. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where lack of documentary evidence regarding the nature of the scrap led to the rejection of the Department's assumptions. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Department to disprove the appellant's claim under the deemed credit order. The judgment concluded that the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the applicable precedent and lack of evidence supporting the recognition of the scrap as non-duty paid goods.
-
1997 (7) TMI 595
Issues:
Determining the stage at which duty is chargeable on goods fabricated by the appellant - whether after fabrication or after galvanization.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CHENNAI revolves around the issue of the appropriate stage at which duty should be charged on goods fabricated by the appellants. The appellants fabricate certain goods and subsequently subject them to the process of galvanization. The lower authority held that duty should be chargeable after galvanization, while the appellants argue that duty should be charged after the fabrication stage but before galvanization. The appellants base their argument on the contention that galvanization does not amount to manufacture, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Kerala. The Supreme Court in that case ruled that galvanization does not result in the creation of new excisable goods with different characteristics.
The Department's representative argues that the Supreme Court's judgment is specific to sales tax and does not apply to Central Excise Law. He asserts that processes ancillary to the completion of a product, including galvanization, are considered part of the manufacturing process under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, according to the Department, goods fabricated by the appellants should be charged duty at the stage they are cleared from the factory, which includes the galvanization process.
After considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal observes that while the appellants do not contest duty payment on goods at the fabrication stage, they dispute the duty being charged after galvanization. The Tribunal distinguishes previous judgments cited by both parties, emphasizing that in the present case, the goods are first fabricated and then galvanized before clearance from the factory. The Tribunal relies on the principle that duty must be paid based on the condition of the goods at the time of clearance, including processes that enrich the value of the goods. Citing the Metal Box case, the Tribunal affirms that duty is to be paid on goods as they emerge in the hands of the appellants for clearance from the factory, which includes goods fabricated and galvanized.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal, ruling that duty on goods fabricated by the appellants and galvanized thereafter must be paid at the stage after galvanization.
-
1997 (7) TMI 594
The Department's appeal regarding entitlement to concession under Notification No. 131/81 was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The Tribunal found that the conditions set by the Assistant Collector were not supported by the law, as the notification only required articles to be re-conditioned or re-made from old and used materials.
-
1997 (7) TMI 593
Issues Involved: Confiscation of biris, duty demand, personal penalties, discrepancy in records, reliance on private record.
Confiscation of Biris: The Collector of Central Excise ordered the confiscation of biris under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and provided an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. The appellant challenged the order citing various reasons such as bags being duty paid, bags returned by customers, and unrecorded production.
Duty Demand: A substantial duty amount was demanded from the appellant for biris surreptitiously removed, based on a private record maintained by individuals not directly associated with the appellant. The appellant denied knowledge of this record, and the Tribunal emphasized the need for verification and independent evidence in cases of clandestine removal.
Personal Penalties: Personal penalties were imposed on the firm and the proprietor under relevant rules. The appellant argued lack of opportunity for cross-examination and relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their case.
Discrepancy in Records: The Commissioner noted discrepancies in the recorded stock of biris, including unlabelled biris and those not entered due to clerical reasons. The appellant's explanations regarding excess stock and production discrepancies were found insufficient, leading to the confirmation of confiscation.
Reliance on Private Record: The Revenue relied on entries made by the appellant's employees without thorough investigation or corroboration from other sources. Following precedents, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand due to lack of verifiable evidence and benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of biris but set aside the duty demand, reducing the penalty on the firm and absolving the proprietor of the penalty. The decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence and lack of verification regarding the duty demand.
-
1997 (7) TMI 592
Issues:
1. Failure to obtain Central Excise license before manufacturing goods.
2. Duty liability and maintenance of accounts.
3. Applicability of proviso (1) to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Time-bar defense raised by the appellants.
5. Lack of specific commission or omission in the show-cause notice.
6. Application of the judgment in the case of C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd.
Analysis:
The appellants filed an appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Addl. Collector, confirming the demand raised in the show-cause notice for failing to obtain a Central Excise license before manufacturing goods and not maintaining accounts to discharge duty liability. The fabrication activities involved various processes like straightening, cutting, bending, painting, and welding of materials. The show-cause notice alleged non-compliance for the period from March 1984 to February 1987, invoking proviso (1) to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
During the hearing, the appellants' counsel argued that the show-cause notice did not specify any commissions or omissions as required by Section 11A(1) of the Act. Referring to the judgment in C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd., it was emphasized that invoking the proviso must clearly notify the assessee of the allegations to enable a defense. The notice must identify which commissions or omissions extend the assessment period beyond six months to five years, ensuring the assessee's right to respond adequately.
The Addl. Collector considered the appellants' defense regarding time-bar, where they claimed no suppression and entitlement to exemption as a small-scale unit. However, the order did not address the time-bar defense or provide a finding on it. The absence of specific commissions or omissions in the show-cause notice was highlighted, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling in C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd. The judgment emphasized the necessity of notifying the assessee of the alleged defaults under the proviso to Section 11A(1) for a fair opportunity to contest the case.
Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the application of the principles established in the judgment of C.C.E. v. H.M.M. Ltd. The lack of specific allegations in the show-cause notice and the failure to adhere to the requirements of Section 11A(1) led to the decision in favor of the appellants, emphasizing procedural fairness and adequate notice in excise proceedings.
-
1997 (7) TMI 591
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata ruled that crushing tobacco leaves into powder is not considered a manufacturing process and is not liable for duty if the leaves have already been taxed as unmanufactured tobacco. The decision was based on a previous judgment in the case of Shri Biswa Vijaya Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants. [1997 (7) TMI 591 - CEGAT, KOLKATA]
-
1997 (7) TMI 589
The appeal by M/s. Saga Electricals Pvt. Ltd. was related to duty liability on Monoblock Pumps involving rotors and stators. The Tribunal's earlier decision concluded that electric motors did not come into existence as identifiable goods. The appeal was allowed, disagreeing with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
-
1997 (7) TMI 584
Issues Involved:
1. Commercial insolvency and winding up of the company.
2. Rights and claims of secured creditors in winding up proceedings.
3. Rate of interest payable to secured creditors and workers from surplus funds.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Commercial Insolvency and Winding Up of the Company:
The winding up petition (C.P. No. 3 of 1984) was filed on January 18, 1984, under section 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, by a contributor for the winding up of the Travancore Ogale Glass Manufacturing Company on the ground of commercial insolvency. A provisional liquidator was appointed on February 7, 1984. The winding up order was issued by the court on June 10, 1985.
2. Rights and Claims of Secured Creditors in Winding Up Proceedings:
The Federal Bank Limited, a secured creditor, was impleaded in the winding up proceedings as per order dated February 17, 1984. The bank initially stated it was keeping outside the winding up proceedings but later sought directions to safeguard its rights to proceed against the assets of the company. The bank filed C.A. No. 291 of 1984 under section 446 of the Companies Act for sanction to institute a civil suit to enforce their security, which was granted on February 11, 1985. The bank subsequently filed O.S. No. 3 of 1986 before the Sub-Court of Ernakulam, resulting in a decree on January 30, 1988, for Rs. 1,48,23,388.73 with 10% interest per annum from the date of the suit till realization.
The sale of the company's assets was conducted, fetching Rs. 6.75 crores, from which the decree amount and interest were paid to the bank. The workers were also paid their dues with interest at the rate of 4% per annum.
The court addressed the fundamental question of whether a secured creditor can stand outside the winding up proceedings. Citing M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras [1955] 25 Comp. Cas. 344 and Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Srinivas Agencies [1996] 86 Comp. Cas. 255, the court affirmed that a secured creditor could stand outside the winding up proceedings and realize their security without the leave of the winding up court.
3. Rate of Interest Payable to Secured Creditors and Workers from Surplus Funds:
The official liquidator filed M.C.A. No. 78 of 1995, seeking to limit the payment of interest from 10% to 4% per annum on the amount due to creditors in the event of surplus funds. The bank, in C.A. No. 65 of 1996, claimed interest at the rate of 10% per annum as per the decree. The workmen, in M.C.A. No. 66 of 1995, also claimed interest at the same rate as the secured creditor.
The court considered whether the interest at the rate of 4% per annum under rule 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, or at the rate of 10% per annum as decreed by the civil court, should be paid to the secured creditors and workers under section 529A of the Companies Act. The court noted that the secured creditor standing outside the winding up proceedings is not bound by rule 179. The court also considered the impact of paying 10% interest on the surplus funds, which would leave no amount available for the workers and contributors.
Balancing the interests of all parties, the court decided to reduce the interest rate from 10% to 6% per annum for both the Federal Bank and the workers, subject to any liability for capital gains tax. This approach was deemed reasonable and equitable, advancing the interests of justice.
Conclusion:
The court disposed of the M.C.As by allowing the secured creditor and the workers to receive 6% interest on the amount paid to them, subject to capital gains tax liabilities. This decision balanced the interests of all parties involved, ensuring a fair distribution of the surplus funds.
-
1997 (7) TMI 577
Whether under the agreement the property in the chemicals was transferred by the company to the firm and by the firm to purchasers thereof?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Neither the agreement nor the practice thereof indicates the transfer of the property in the said chemicals by the company to the firm.
-
1997 (7) TMI 569
Whether the Government Ayurvedic College, Trivandrum, comes within the expression “State” occurring in section 2(viii) of the Act which defines “dealer”?
Whether the certificate issued by the Government ayurvedic college substantially satisfied the requirements of sub- rule (14) of rule 32 and form 25?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. As these questions have neither been dealt with by the sales tax authorities nor by the High Court. Initially, we thought of deciding these questions here. But, in the absence of material facts, it is not safe to decide these questions in this appeal. In such circumstances, we set aside the order and judgment of the High Court of Kerala and send these cases back to the High Court for deciding the questions referred to above.
-
1997 (7) TMI 567
Whether ultramarine blue is a pigment, so that it falls under item 110 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as contended by the sales tax authorities, or a chemical, so that it falls under item 138 thereof, as contended by the assessees?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Madras High Court in the judgment under appeal rightly relied strongly on the Calcutta High Court decision Nilsin Company v. Collector of Central Excise [1983 (7) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA] to come to the conclusion that ultramarine blue was a pigment and, therefore, liable to sales tax under item 110. Neither the assessees nor the sales tax authorities placed any evidence before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal or before the High Court.
............
|
9911796707
