|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 473 Records
-
2000 (1) TMI 864 - DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
District Forum ... ... ... ... ..... a. with effect from 29-11-1996 till payment along with compensation of Rs. 500 and costs of Rs. 500 within 30 days from the date of the order. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has referred the present appeal under section 15 of the Act. Notice of the appeal, preferred by the appellant, was given to the respondent who has entered appearance through his Advocate. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. As matter of fact the present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands fully covered by a recent decision of this Commission dated the 9-12-1999 in Appeal No. A-916/1998 and other connected matters entitled DCM Financial Services Ltd. v. Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta. For reasons recorded in the abovesaid appeal (Appeal No. A-916/99) on 9-12-1999, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is also dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 863 - SC ORDER
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties, no interference under article 136 of the Constitution with the impugned order which admittedly is appealable before a Division Bench of the High Court under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 required.
As the respondent does not dispute about the maintainability of the appeal against the impugned order. Therefore, dispose of this special leave petition without expressing any opinion on merits. Ad interim order dated 15-10-1999 passed by us staying further proceedings will continue for six weeks from today.
-
2000 (1) TMI 853 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Diesel engine pump sets are not agricultural implements?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Subsequent to the amendment, the exemption was given to agricultural implements but implements that were operated by power were excepted therefrom. A clear inference, therefore, arises that tractors for the purposes of item No. 13 are agricultural implements that are operated by power.
Now, tractors are not operated by electric power but by other motive power. The words "operated by power", therefore, cannot be confined to implements operated by electric power but must include implements that are operated by motive power of any kind. The majority decision of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified.
-
2000 (1) TMI 839 - SC ORDER
Jurisdiction of High Court - Held that:- Appeal allowed. As on the findings of fact reached by the Tribunal, no justification for the High Court's interference with the order under appeal before it, insofar as it related to the items of insurance, service performance deposit and defective "C" form for the two years in question. Thus the order under appeal is set aside, insofar as these three items are concerned.
-
2000 (1) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT
Meaning of the words "light commercial vehicles" used in a notification dated March 5, 1987, issued under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal was right in saying that the trade and the Government of India well understood what the words "light commercial vehicles" meant. These are the words used by the said notification issued under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and they must be similarly read. There is no justification for importing the definitions of the Motor Vehicles Act to construe them.
The sales tax authorities who issued the said notification knew very well what vehicles they were granting the rate of 4.5 per cent to. It is only those who enforce the said notification who take a contrary view to enhance sales tax revenues.
-
2000 (1) TMI 823 - SUPREME COURT
EXEMPTION — TOBACCO - INCLUSIVE OF ITEMS IN ENTRY IN ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF EXCISE ACT — GUTKA — IS A FORM OF MANUFACTURED TOBACCO COVERED BY THAT ACT
-
2000 (1) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT
Notifications dated January 8, 1990, June 27, 1990 and March 7, 1994 to reduce the rate of sales tax payable by dealers having their place of business in that State in respect of inter-State sales challenged - Held that:- Appeal allowed. In the interest of justice and equity, that the respondent-State should be directed not to collect the amount of sales tax that became payable only by reason of the order in the case of Shri Digvijay Cement [1997 (3) TMI 516 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] quashing the notifications dated January 8, 1990, June 27, 1990 and March 7, 1994.
-
2000 (1) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the dealer is eligible to avail of the exemption under Separate Revenue Department Notification No. A-3-41-81 (31)-ST-V, dated June 29, 1982 in respect of the inter-State sale of goods manufactured by him, by virtue of his holding an eligibility certificate in fulfilment of one of the conditions laid down in the said notification for eligibility of the said exemption, although he was not holding a registration certificate under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is answered in favour of the assessee. The assessee has rightly pointed out that the certificate of registration valid from November 12, 1981, until cancelled was secured by the respondent though on the date of registration it was not liable to pay tax under the Central Act. Liability to pay tax arose on commencement of production and business on January 10, 1984, whereafter exemption from payment of sales tax was claimed under the notification.
-
2000 (1) TMI 801 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Review - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... sioner under Sec. 129D. The Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Cen. Excise v. M.M. Rubber Co. 1991 (55) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) wrongly mentioned as U.O.I. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 281 (S.C.) . In the present case, the date of issue of the Commissioner rsquo s decision is 24-1-2000. From the date of issue of the order of the adjudicating authority i.e. 6-11-98 this order was clearly passed beyond the period of one year. Therefore, following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment cited supra and the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of CC, Mumbai v. M/s. Fujitus India Telecom Ltd. (supra), we hold that the review application suffers from the limitation laid down in Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. emsp Since the application under Section 129D of the Act was deficient in law, the impugned order passed in pursuance thereof becomes non est, and deserves to be set aside. We do so and reject the appeal.
-
2000 (1) TMI 796 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... by the respondent-company in favour of the petitioner justifying the amounts withheld and the present petition is filed only after filing the civil suit by the respondent cannot be said to be a bona fide one, and the company petition is liable to be dismissed. Apart from the same, the respondent-company also established the fact by filing the statement of account obtained from its banker which establishes that the amounts were lying to the credit of the respondent rsquo s account to discharge the amount due under cheques issued under various dates of the relevant dates. When that is the case, it cannot be said that the substratum of the company disappeared, and there is no possibility of the respondent-company doing any business on profits and the respondent-company has become insolvent. I am not prepared to accept the said contention raised by the petitioner and the same is rejected and the company petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (1) TMI 795 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up - Custody of company’s property ... ... ... ... ..... the company was entitled. The boiler was owned by the Credit Capital Finance Corporation Ltd. (p. 671) 9. This Court also in similar circumstances, directed the Official Liquidator to release the Kirlosker Cummins Diesel Engine, Model NTC 4956 with accessories after verification of necessary documents. 10. In the present case, the applicant amply demonstrated that the property belongs to them in view of the hire purchase agreement entered into by the respondent-company and also by filing certificate of sanctioning finance and necessary correspondence with the respondent-company and charge was also created in favour of the applicant-company over the above said property with the Registrar of Companies on 9-5-1996. Therefore, the applicant-company is entitled to the above property. 11. In the circumstances, the application is allowed and the Official Liquidator is directed to hand over the possession of hot air generator (2 Nos.) HD-120 along with accessories to the petitioner.
-
2000 (1) TMI 794 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Terms and conditions of service of chairman and members ... ... ... ... ..... ass of individuals. 21. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notes of the Finance Ministry and the Cabinet Secretary are couched in a language designed to mislead the appointing authority is only to be noted to be rejected. There is no basis for this submission. A perusal of the notes shows that there was no such intention, rather the intention was to place the correct perspective before the authorities. The Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the exercise of power for relaxation in the present case is arbitrary. We are unable to accept this bald averment. We find nothing arbitrary in the exercise of relaxation power, rather the relevant notes to which reference has already been made, contain full justification for the exercise of power. 22. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
-
2000 (1) TMI 778 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Customs - Under-valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... f the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana (supra). The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in, this case held that the partners of the firm not to be made liable to pay duty in absence of proof that they were incharge of business at the relevant time. In the present case, there is evidence on record to show that Shri Tarun Chandra, M.D. gave instructions to the supplier of the goods to show the less price in the invoice. Therefore, it is only on the behest of Shri Tarun Chandra, M.D. of the appellant firm the invoices were got fabricated to show less value of the goods. Therefore, the facts of the case law, relied upon by the appellants, are not parallel to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio of the decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court are not applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. emsp In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals, filed by the appellants, are rejected.
-
2000 (1) TMI 777 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Cement, articles of - Manufacture - Exemption, for construction at site, for buildings ... ... ... ... ..... of the said Notification. Further, we also notice the clarification issued by the Board. 9. emsp In view of the two aspects of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner for de novo consideration to reconsider the plea pertaining to the issue of Notifications in light of the judgment of the Tribunal and the Board rsquo s Circular noted above and also to re-consider the plea of time bar in the light of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of H.M.M. Ltd. (supra). Thus, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration. 10. emsp At this stage, the learned counsel seeks for direction to adjudicate the matter expeditiously, as the matter is a old one. 11. emsp Heard learned D.R. 12. emsp Considered. In the interest of justice, we direct the Commissioner to decide this matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2000 (1) TMI 765 - ITAT JABALPUR
Method of accounting ... ... ... ... ..... drawal of Rs. 45,000. No reason has been given for not accepting the marriage gifts. Giving of some gift at the time of marriages is conventional in our country. The claim of receipt of gifts at Rs. 15,000 looks reasonable. In view of the above, I reduce the addition to Rs. 30,000. 8. Ground No. 5 is against the addition of Rs. 26,385, which was made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in the account with Variety Glass Emporium. 9. I have heard both the parties and have perused the material placed before me and I find that the CIT(A) has restored this matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. In my opinion, the CIT(A) has given cogent reasons for restoring it back to the file of Assessing Officer. Hence I uphold his order on this point. 10. Ground No. 6 of the appeal is against the charging of interest. I direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the same after final determination of income. 11. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 759 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rcular No. 404/37/98-CX., of 22-6-1998. The Commissioner (Appeals) seeks to get around the Board rsquo s circular by saying that no buyer will normally furnish an advance without getting interest on it unless the amount invested is not adjusted against the price. This is the view that the departmental representative adopts. This is nothing more than a mere presumption and is unsupported by any evidence. As against this view, the contention of the advocate that advance was taken solely in order to ensure that the customers do not back out from the orders with the result leaving the manufacturer holding the goods specially fabricated for them without a buyer is equally acceptable. It was for the department to show that the effect of advance reduces the price of the goods supplied. The department has failed to show this. 5. emsp Accordingly, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment, we are unable to uphold the order in question, set it aside and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (1) TMI 758 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Clandestine removal - Proof - Penalty - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... point which appeals to the Bench is that in the duty calculation there is error inasmuch as that duty has been calculated for Sundays and holidays and calculated even for weeks beyond stipulated in the calendar. This needs to be checked by the authorities before recovery of the amount. Therefore, on this aspect of the matter the Collector shall recalculate the duty by excluding the Sundays and holidays and arrive at the figure correctly so that the appellants are satisfied that there is no error in the calculation. The appellant will be heard on this aspect. We also notice that appellant has been imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. In the facts and circumstances the penalty is confirmed for Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) and the relief given is only to an extent of Rs. 10,000/-. With regard to confirmation of duty, the Collector shall rework out the duty amount as noted above after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is otherwise rejected on merits.
-
2000 (1) TMI 744 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Provisional assessment - Hearing - Multiplicity of proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... sessments expeditiously. Though such a request appears slightly unusual, we are of the considered opinion that if it is accepted by Revenue, it would certainly lead to reduction of areas of conflict at a later date, as also a more judicious and expeditious settlement of this dispute. Therefore, we commend this for consideration of the Revenue. 29. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings and analyses, we sum up our orders as follows - (a) The show cause notice dated 25-9-87 and the attendant Order-in-Original impugned before us are set aside (b) The Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner is directed to expeditiously address himself to the finalisation of the provisional assessments as already detailed above (c) In view of the aforesaid Judicial decisions, we find that the Revenue shall be at liberty to examine the issue of any short levy, non-levy and consequent penal liability only after the finalisation of the assessment, etc. as per law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (1) TMI 735 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine - Quantum - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ed to secure a licence for importation of such goods. It is his information that licences had been given for importation of such engines. We have seen the application. The application bears the date 24-9-1999. It is difficult to believe that for a consignment which was already on its way the importers would have been in a situation to secure the licence before arrival of the goods. In our opinion the Commissioner was justified in proposing a higher percentage of penalty although the goods were similar. We, however, are of the opinion that the increase in the quantum of penalty is very substantial as compared to one import in the previous case. On this count, some reduction may be warranted. Shri Doiphode also submits that the burden of demurrage is already on the importer. 8. emsp On the observations above, we reduce the quantum of fine from Rs. 30 lakhs to Rs. 13 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs. Subject to these modifications, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (1) TMI 728 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... appellant, and examined earlier support the appellant rsquo s claim for treating the said units as separate entities under the reported facts. 31. emsp Regarding the imposition of penalty, presence of mens-rea is a mandatory requirement and in the absence of which imposition of penalty is unjustified as laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) and also the decision of Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay reported in 1995 (78) E.L.T. 193 (Tri.) in which it has been clarified that penalty is not leviable in case of technical or venial breach of provisions of Act or where breach flows from bonafide belief of the offender. 32. emsp I therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals arising from the same Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. K-III, Mumbai-IV. Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
............
|
