|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 264 Records
-
1986 (1) TMI 124 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... due concession justifiably earned in fulfilling the legislative intent. 5.4 The decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of Sawyer s Asia Ltd. was concerned with period for which number of workers must remain in the employment of the assessee, that is to say, whether minimum number of workers should be throughout the year or part of the year or substantial part of the year. Therefore, the ratio of the decision is not at all relevant for the purpose of issues considered here. If at all, reading the judgment, the approach adopted by their Lordships of the Bombay High Court supports the claim of the assessee. 5.5 We, therefore, set aside the order of the AAC and direct the ITO to allow the claim of the assessee if other conditions are fulfilled. He shall verify the correctness of the claim for all the years after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. He shall pass the orders in the case of the firm as also partners. 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (1) TMI 123 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Sawn timber ... ... ... ... ..... otices. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Orissa and Others v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Another (AIR 1985 Supreme Court, 1293 at page 1330, para 91). He has observed that the sawn timbers or cut sizes of timber are not the products of manufacturing process so as to attract the levy of excise duty. 4. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. case. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct and it does not call for reconsideration. 5. The appeals are rejected.
-
1986 (1) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Export - Rebate of duty - Demand - Time limit ... ... ... ... ..... en under Rule 10 could not be continued after Section 11A came into effect. 9. Mr. Deodhar, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted, and rightly, that the principles of the Allahabad High Court s decision would not apply to the instant case because the order on the show-cause notice dated 27th July, 1977 under Rule 10 had been made on 4th August, 1978 at which time Rule 10 was in effect. It could not, therefore, be contended that the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice under Rule 10 on 27th July, 1977 had lapsed. 10. At the time the show-cause notice dated 27th July, 1977 under Rule 10 was issued Rule 10 in its original form was in effect. It prescribed, as aforesaid, the period of three months. The recovery from the petitioners under show-cause notice must, accordingly, be restricted to refunds made within the period of three months before 27th July, 1977. 11. With the clarification aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Packing in cartons and wooden cases - Tread rubber ... ... ... ... ..... as, in the case of the tread rubber manufactured by the Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. a different view had been taken. It was the manufacturer s case there that sales of tread rubber had taken place with no packing whatsoever. ............... In the instant case, it has been repeatedly stated by the petitioners both before the authorities as well as in the petition that the packing in the cardboard cartons and the wooden cases was done as a courtesy to their customers. It is not the petitioners case that they have sold their tread rubber except in the cardboard cartons or the wooden cases. 12. Since I have no doubt that the cardboard cartons and the wooden cases are not such secondary packing materials as can be excluded in computing the assessable value of the petitioners tread rubber, there is no reason to remand the petitioners refund application to the 3rd respondent. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Rule discharged.
-
1986 (1) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Short-levy - Questions of fact - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... articulars on the basis of which the claim has been made against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have alleged that they have been handicapped in presenting their case because of non-supply of those particulars 5. The petition is, therefore, disposed of by directing the respondents to supply to the petitioners the particulars on the basis of which the claims against the petitioners has been computed. Such particulars must be supplied to the petitioners by the 17th February, 1986. 6. I am making it clear that all the questions are left open, to be agitated before the statutory authority and the respondents will be at liberty to decide the case in accordance with law as they think fit. Petitioners will be at liberty to file their objections by the 27th February, 1986 and hearing will remain stayed till 27th February, 1986. 7. Save as aforesaid, there will be no other order on this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. 8. There will be no order for costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Chemical Products Miscellaneous ... ... ... ... ..... ne. 4. Shri Deodhar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department urged that the Explanation inserted by the Notification dated June 12, 1984 would have application to the import of items subsequent to that date and would have no application to the import effected earlier. The submission is only required to be stated to be rejected. The explanation was included in the original exemption notification with a view to clarify the position which was known to everyone before hand. The advantage of the exemption notification could not be denied to the petitioners. In my judgment, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit of the exemption notification was wholly unsustainable and the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (b) (i) and this relief is available as long as Notification dated March 1, 1983 remains in operation. The respondents shall pay costs of the petitioners.
-
1986 (1) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Detention certificate - Issue of ... ... ... ... ..... delay occurs, then the importer cannot be penalised. In my judgment, the reasonable period in which the Department could have cleared the goods in the present case is three weeks from the date of presentation of the bill of entry, and accordingly the Department is bound to issue detention certificate to the petitioners for a period commencing from three weeks after the date of presentation of each of the bills till March 5, 1980. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the Department is directed to issue detention certificate in respect of 26 bills of entries, the details of which are set out at Exhibit F to the petition, for a period commencing from three weeks after the date of presentation of each of the bill of entry and ending with March 5,1980. The detention certificate for the requisite period in respect of each bill of entry shall be issued by the Department within a period of four weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Importer entering into foreign collaboration for manufacture of goods in India ... ... ... ... ..... cific finding, the appellate authority made certain general observations as to what is the care required to be taken by the Assistant Collector in examining the invoices. These observations were purely obiter and were merely in the nature of guidelines to the Assistant Collector and could not be construed by any stretch of imagination as a direction to reopen and re-examine the issue as to whether Rule 6 is applicable in respect of imports made by the petitioners. In my judgment, the Assistant Collector has clearly misunderstood the conclusions recorded by the Appellate Authority and the notice dated March 9, 1981 served on the petitioners is entirely misconceived. In my judgment, the impugned notice is required to be struck down. 6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The bonds furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of this notice would stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Distinction between chargeability and Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ers. He has, therefore, proceeded on the basis that the petitioners have admitted the correctness of the findings Since the petitioners have not been heard in the matter, this is a fit case where the matter should be sent back to the Customs authorities concerned for determination after giving a hearing to the petitioners. 6. In the premises the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 29th October, 1974 and 4th January, 1975 are set aside. He is directed to determine the matter afresh on the said show cause notice after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to put in their reply and after giving them a hearing in the matter. The petitioners have already deposited 25 of the impugned duty with the Customs authorities and they undertake to submit a fresh bond in lieu of the bond dated 26th November, 1974 which has now expired. Such bond to be furnished within 3 weeks. 7. Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Valuation - Excise Duty paid or payable deductible from the assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... aka High Court has also referred to the decision of this Court in B.K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and expressed thus We are of the view that this enunciation made by the learned Judge is in accord with what we have expressed earlier. We are of the view that it is unnecessary to examine the other questions that were decided in that case. In view of what we have stated above, it is difficult to appreciate how this decision supports Shri Bobde. 12. Lastly, Shri Bobde urged a question of limitation in Writ Petition No. 2250 of 1983 based on the statement of show cause notices (Annexure II) at Serial Nos. 12 and 13 as barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Rules in force framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The authorities below have dealt with this aspect and, in our view, rightly. We see no reason to take a view different from the one that has been taken by the authorities below. 13. To conclude, all the petitions are dismissed with costs. Rule discharged.
-
1986 (1) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay - Res judicata ... ... ... ... ..... . The petitioner firm shall deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division III, Ahmedabad within two weeks from to-day towards the demand raised. 2. The petitioner-firm shall give an undertaking of one of its partners to this court that the petitioner-firm shall not transfer its factory without the permission of this court till final hearing and disposal of the appeal. Such an undertaking to be given within three weeks from to-day. 3. The tribunal shall hear and dispose of finally the main appeal on merits preferred by the petitioner-firm as early as possible but in any case not later than 30th April, 1986. 5. In view of the directions aforesaid, nothing will remain for effective adjudication and the petition shall stand disposed of accordingly for which we shall have to issue rule in this matter which we hereby do. Mr. S.D. Shah appears for the respondents and waives service of the rule. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... tatutory bar and grant refund. In other words, by lapse of time a party s right to refund might have been extinguished and it may no longer have any subsisting right to maintain a writ application for enforcement of the same. Similarly, the bar of limitation has taken place and the respondents have no enforceable duty to refund of tax or duty illegally recovered. In ordering or refusing the prayer for refund in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, the court may decline to make an order for payment of money for which there may be other appropriate and adequate remedies and by the party s own laches the remedy had become time barred. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that in the instant case when the appellant company s right to obtain refund had been already extinguished it would be sound exercise of discretion to refuse its prayer for issue of mandate upon the respondents to refund duty in question. 9. We accordingly dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 112 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Valuation - Cost of packing ... ... ... ... ..... r was sub judice before the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the point had been raised earlier in this court and had been decided against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court and is pending there. The petitioner now seeks quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the respondents not to add the price of wooden packing to the value of the dry cell batteries for the purpose of excise duty. The petitioner has also sought an interim relief that the petitioner be permitted to remove the dry cell batteries without payment of excise duty on the charges of wooden packing. 5. We are of the opinion that the relief which the petitioner is now seeking may be sought in the special leave petition pending before the Supreme Court. We do not consider it proper to adjudicate upon the matter again while the special leave petition is pending in the Supreme Court. With these observations, we dismiss the writ petition at the admission stage.
-
1986 (1) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Prosecution - Evidence - Conviction ... ... ... ... ..... . He is the witness who during the course of his inspection, found sale note in the name of Mohammed Yusuf, son of Nisamuddin, issued by the accused petitioner. On this basis, he further probed into the matter and did not find the shop of Mohammed Yusuf, which P.W.3 had certified to be in existence - Vide Ex.P.2. As he recorded his statement of Mohammed Umar which is Ex.P.6, he got suspicious with the name Mohammed occurring in Mohammed Umar and Mohammed Yusuf, appeared to be similar and it is this suspicion which resulted in the filing of complaint almost eight years after the enquiry which commenced on 19.2.1969. Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be made the basis of conviction, as in this case there is no convincing reliable evidence to connect the accused with the offence charged. The conviction recorded against him deserves to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. The revision petitions are accepted. The fine, if deposited by the petitioner, shall be refunded to him.
-
1986 (1) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Countervailing duty - Polyamide chips ... ... ... ... ..... e of nylon yarn. The respondents there had not filed a reply. The Division Bench, in the circumstances, was satisfied that the conditions mentioned in the exemption notification was satisfied and that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from countervailing duty. 10. The same argument of conditional exemption has been advanced before me. The petitioners have stated that the imported polyamide chips would be used in the manufacture of nylon yarn. This is not disputed by the respondents. The conditions of the exemption notification must, therefore, be held to have been satisfied. The polyamide chips imported by the petitioners are, therefore, not liable to countervailing duty. 11. The order of the 1st respondent dated 17th May, 1978 is quashed and set aside in so far as it requires payment of countervailing duty upon the polyamide chips. The 1st respondent shall refund to the petitioners the amount of Rs. 4,64,409.44 paid as countervailing duty within 8 weeks from today.
-
1986 (1) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Pan masala - Refund - Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of the Assistant Collector as stated above. The Assistant Collector in each of the cases is hereby directed to decide the question whether the petitioners in each of the cases have passed on the excise duty to the customers. It will be open to the petitioners to rely on any document available at their command in support of their claim that they had not passed on the excise duty to the customers. 16. All the necessary records shall be produced by the petitioners in each of the cases on or before 31-1-1986. Since it is stated by the learned Counsel for the Excise Department that the department does not have the originals of invoices, it will be open to the. petitioners to produce the duplicate thereof in support of their claim that the excise duty had not been passed on to the customers. On a consideration of all these materials, the decision shall be rendered on or before 28-2-1986. The writ petitions are allowed as stated above, with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000/- one set.
-
1986 (1) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - Metallic yarn ... ... ... ... ..... iff has, however, claimed Rs. 58,521.09 only as interest on the total amount. The plaintiff is entitled to that amount only as interest. The total amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover thus comes to Rs. 3,74,127.10 p. (Rs. 3,15,606.01 Rs. 58,521.09 p.). The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the principal amount at 6 per annum from the date of the suit till realization. 15. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, First Appeal No. 846 of 1975 filed by the Union of India is hereby dismissed with costs. 16. First Appeal No. 746 of 1975 filed by the original plaintiff is hereby allowed, the decree passed by the trial court is hereby modified and the defendant - Union of India is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 3,74,127.10 p. with full costs of the suit and interest on the principal amount of Rs. 3,15,606.01 p. at 6 per annum from the date of the suit till realization. The respondent to bear their own costs of this appeal and pay those of the appellant.
-
1986 (1) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Oil - Vegetable non-essential oil ... ... ... ... ..... 12. The learned Judge came to a conclusion that vegetable tallow was not a vegetable product falling under item 13. In that case the question of classification was directly in issue between the parties, both in the proceedings before the Collectorate of Central Excise as well as in this Court. In the present case, however, this question has not been raised either in the proceedings before the Collectorate of Central Excise or in the petition in this Court. In our view it would not be proper to permit the petitioners to raise this issue at the appellate stage when there is no material on record on the basis of which this question can be raised or decided. 10. In the premises contentions in the present appeal are directly covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Indian Vegetable Products Limited v. Union of India and Others 1985 (22) E.L.T. 406 referred to earlier. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (1) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Conviction and sentence for possession of primary gold valid - Economic offences ... ... ... ... ..... ) the case is one of first conviction (ii) that the matter has been already dealt with by severe departmental penalty (iii) that the convicted person is a young man. To the extent to which gold smuggling and other anti-social operators in the field of crime can be given an unhappy holiday in jail, the courts must help the process on conviction, if judicial institutions, are not to be cynically viewed by the community. We confirm the sentence. 19. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed by the trial Court on the revision petitioner under Section 85(1) read with Section 8(1) (i) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, cannot be said to be either excessive or severe. Under the circumstances, the confirmation of the conviction as well as the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner herein by the lower appellate Court is correct and in accordance with law. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The criminal revision case is dismissed.
-
1986 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arrest under Customs Act or FERA ... ... ... ... ..... rest for no purpose and the obligation to produce will also be superfluous requirement of law or an empty formality to be completed with, for, after producing him before the Magistrate, the arrested person cannot be subjected to any restriction but would be required to be released forthwith. Why then arrest him? Why then produce him before the Magistrate? These are questions which would remain unanswered if the view taken by the learned Magistrate were to be accepted as the correct view of law. So also the arrest of such a person would be a meaningless exercise. 4. In my humble opinion, the view taken by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application No. 585 of 1982 (Shri N.H. Dave, Inspector of Customs v. Shri Mohamed Akhtar Hussain Ibrahim and others) and the observations made therein lay down the correct law. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6-3-1985 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, is set aside.
............
|
