|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 195 Records
-
1987 (12) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Whether stacks of "eucalyptus-wood" sold by the forest department after separating the "Ballies"and "poles" constitute and answer the description of 'Timber' under entry 32A of Part II of Schedule II to the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958?
Held that:- What emerges therefore, is that the goods in question are not 'Timber' within the meaning and for purposes of entry 32A of the Act.
In regard to the question as to what other description the goods answer and which other entry they fall under, learned Counsel on both sides submitted that, if we hold that entry 32A is not the appropriate one, the matter be remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration of the matter in the light of such other or further material the parties may place before the High Court. We accept this submission. Appeals allowed in part and the finding of the High Court that the goods in question fall within and attract entry 32A of Part II of Schedule II of the 'Act' is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for an appropriate decision as to which other entry the goods in question attract. The concerned Respondents are directed to refund to the appellants, sums equivalent to 6% wherever the taxes are already recovered at 16%.
-
1987 (12) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... articles seized to the petitioner. 15.As regards criminal prosecution, sufficient particulars of filing of the complaint and other relevant information are wanting. We, therefore, decline to express any opinion on that count. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise all such objections against the maintainability of the complaint as may be available to him and the learned trial court, we hope shall decide them before proceeding with the trial of the case. 16.In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is partly allowed, the orders dated 26-3-1980 (Annexure P/8) and dated 22-9-1980. (Annexure P-9) and recovery proceedings in pursuance of the notice (Annexure P/3) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to return the seized goods or their value to the petitioner within three months from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 200/-, if certified. The outstanding amount of security be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1987 (12) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution - Bail to foreign national - Cancellation of bail ... ... ... ... ..... Indian border through illicit channel, if need be, by forfeiting the amount of bond, in a reasonable apprehension. Securing presence of the accused for trial, is one of the two paramount considerations the court has to keep in mind while considering bail. The discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate, is granting bail, suffers from serious infirmity in that it is in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in several of its decisions, referred to above. Interests of justice require, but this court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in granting bail. The order of the learned Magistrate, therefore, has to be set aside. 18. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, Madras in Crl. M.P. No. 695 of 1987 dated 3-11-1987 is set aside. The petitioner will complete the investigation without any delay and, if a complaint is filed, expedite the trial.
-
1987 (12) TMI 52 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Detention - Preventive detention ... ... ... ... ..... hat is what they did. But they did not find anything. This document, therefore, was a relevant document and, therefore, should have been placed before the detaining authority. Its impact must be adverse to the department. 7. The fourth and the last point is that the representation which was made to the Central Government on 1st September, 1987 was considered late and its rejection was communicated to him on 13th October, 1987. This is apparent from the letter of communication. No return is filed on behalf of the Central Government nor it is clarified by any document and there was no explanation for this delay, first, in taking the decision on the representation and second, in communicating the same. Both the counts are against the Department. 8. The petition, therefore, succeeds on all these grounds. Rules absolute. The impugned order of detention dated 22nd April, 1987 recorded by the first respondent is quashed and set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith
-
1987 (12) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYD.
Customs - Plastic ... ... ... ... ..... lar to those in W.P. No. 8850/1983. Following the said judgment, the petitioner is entitled only to the relief of exclusion of packing charges from determining the assessable value on the imported goods and all other contentions are rejected. A direction similar to one in W.P. No. 8850/1983 shal issue. 26. Writ Petition No. 8852/1983. - In this case, 1,200 metric tons of caustic soda was imported. The contentions raised are similar in the earlier writ petitions. Except to the extent of exclusion of the packing charges, all other contentions are rejected and there will be a similar direction in this case also. 27. There shall be no order as to costs in all the four writ petitions. 28. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral request for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not consider this to be a case involving any substantial question of law of general importance requiring the consideration of the Supreme Court. Oral request for leave is refused
-
1987 (12) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Fabrics - Demand - Arising out of short levy - Time-limit ... ... ... ... ..... ioners did not press the same for our consideration in view of the fact that we have upheld his fourth contention. The fifth contention was placed for our consideration in the alternative and as we have decided the main contention in his favour, he made it clear that he does not press this last contention. We, therefore, express no opinion thereon. 21. Before leaving the 5th contention, we must make it clear that all the advocates appearing for each petitioner in this group of matters agreed before us that they do not press the 5th contention nor do they want this court to pronounce upon the same so far as the present proceedings are concerned and consequently, we have not decided this 5th contention earlier canvassed by Mrs. Mehta as it is treated to be expressly given up. 22. In view of the aforesaid conclusion reached by us on diverse points, we now proceed to deal with the petitioners in these group of matters individually with a view to passing appropriate final orders.
-
1987 (12) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
Writ jurisdiction - Notification ... ... ... ... ..... deration before the Assistant Collector. The refusal by the Government of India to issue any direction to the Assistant Collector or Collector to decide the case of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner cannot be construed as a direction to decide the case against the petitioner. The authorities designated under the Act are expected to decide the cases fairly, on the basis of the material on record and in accordance with the provisions of law. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the Act are illusory, cannot therefore, be upheld. 5. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be held in the instant case, that the statutory remedies available to the petitioner are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of any extraordinary situation and that there is any good and sufficient reason to by-pass the alternative remedy provided by the Statute. 6. The petition, therefore, fails and is summarily dismissed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Seizure - Trucks containing contraband goods ... ... ... ... ..... ling of the application the petitioner had also approached respondent No. 2 for the same. The petitioner feeling aggrieved has come to this court again seeking direction to Dy. Collector, Central Excise and Customs for release of his trucks. 3. We, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to direct to respondent No. 3 to decide the application made under Section 143 of the Customs Act for provisional release of the trucks within 10 days from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. Failing to decide the application, the petitioner will be entitled to get release of the trucks aforesaid after furnishing bonds as required under Section 143 of the aforesaid Act. The bonds to be executed by the petitioner shall be to the value of the trucks. With the observation made above, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall be given a certified copy of the order, if applied for, within two days.
-
1987 (12) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Erroneous classification of goods - Duty collected under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, disputed fact that there was a mistake of the assessee while getting approved the classification list in the earlier period.... Thus it is quite obvious that there was a mistake on both sides and the mistake was obviously relating to the classification itself which could safely be termed as a mistake of law. In this view of the matter, following consistent view taken by the Court, we have no other alternative but to direct the Respondents to refund to the petitioner-Company the amount of Rs. 3,64,203.93 as claimed by it. 4. Hence Rule is made absolute with no orders as to costs. 5. Shri Mhamane has made a statement that he has advised his clients to use this refund amount towards the welfare activities. We are informed that the petitioner-Company has no objection to do so, if the amount is not claimed by the consumers, or the dealers who have paid it. We do hope that the Company will use this amount towards the welfare activities as advised by the learned Counsel.
-
1987 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Repair of Transformers - Set-off of duty - Captive consumption - Refund - Duty paid under mistake of law - Limitation
-
1987 (12) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Limitation - Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... pective dates of payment. In that view of the matter, the decision of the respondent No. 1 on the point of limitation is absolutely contrary to the letters of law as set out above. The facts of the case will attract the provisions of either (e) or (f) set out above. The finding that limitation is expected to start from the date of raising the demand of duty as held by the respondent No. 1 is certainly perverse because it is against the express provisions of law. In my opinion, even if (e) is not attracted, the facts of the case certainly come within the preview of the provisions in (f) of the Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the order, dated 25th August, 1986 being Annexure E to the petition is set aside and/or quashed. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to refund to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 5,97,343.98 within three months from date. 9. Mr. Mitra, appearing for the respondents prays for stay. His prayer for stay is refused. 10. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Timber - "Round" and "Swan" timber - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... g of timber did not amount to manufacture as the timber even after sawing continued to be timber and no new commodity came into existence. The conversion of logs into planks, beams etc. did not amount to manufacture as envisaged by Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. It is thus obvious that opposite parties were not justified in demanding excise duty on Round or sawed timber. 4. Learned Standing Counsel urged that the petition is premature as it is against the show cause notice. The argument appears to have no substance. No factual controversy has been raised. It is on undisputed facts that leviability has been challenged. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The notices issued by the opposite parties copies of which have been filed as Annexures 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 to writ petition are quashed. The opposite parties are further directed not to enforce the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act against petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 43 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Tariff Value - Valuation - Sulphuric Acid ... ... ... ... ..... at in the case of a suit for relief from the consequences of a mistake, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. In that case, limitation commenced, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court on 14-4-1967, in State of Madras v. Nandlal and Co., AIR L967 S.C. 1758 and the petition filed within three years was held to be in time. Therefore, the objection of limitation is over-ruled so far as the petitioner s claim for excess payment for the period from 26-7-1975 to 30-9-1975 is concerned. 11. With the result, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to adjust excess amount paid as excise duty on the sulphuric acid manufactured by the petitioner during the period 26-7-1975 to 30-9-1975, towards the future dues of excise duty payable by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1987 (12) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Customs - Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... of space available at the warehouse of respondent No. 1 it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have obtained orders from the Custom Authorities for transferring the goods to any public warehouse or any private warehouse where the charges are much less. Mere fact that this option has not been exercised by the petitioners is no ground to deprive the petitioners of their right to get the demurrage charged waived from respondent No. 1, if in law, they are entitled to such waiver. 13. In view of the discussion above, I make the rule absolute and allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order of respondent No. 1 and direct respondent No. 1 to release the goods of petitioner forthwith after waiving the demurrage charges in accordance with its own directives for the period mentioned in the detention order and also for the subsequent period till release of the goods. 14. In view of the legal questions involved I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this writ petition.
-
1987 (12) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Paper - Exemption - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... crafts Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another, 1987 (3) E.L.T. 912 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court also had given the opinion that Rule 10 could cover such cases of short levy of duties. The period of limitation could be considered extended only in cases where there has been fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Such is not the case here. So, these demands are also barred by limitation. 17. In view of the above discussion, I allow both the writ petitions and make the rule absolute and in writ petition No. 547/76, I quash the impugned orders and I direct the respondents to refund the duty as claimed in the petition and in writ petition No. 847/79, 1 quash the impugned demands and orders. Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner be released and the amount already deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the interim orders be also refunded. Keeping in view the legal question involved, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in both the writs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 40 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Writ jurisdiction - Appeal - Pre-deposit of duty or penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the observations made in the course of this order. 33. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued before me all the contentions which were urged before the Tribunal, and I am convinced that this is a case where the order of the Tribunal requires to be modified. 34. After a very elaborate and careful consideration of the contentions of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice to give relief to the petitioner to the extent it is covered by the Abstract (II) to the Collector s order, viz., in a sum of Rs. 13,24,725.90ps. 35. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, and the order of the Appellate Tribunal (Annexure C ), is modified in the following terms - 36. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal expeditiously without insisting on pre-deposit of Rs. 13,24,725.90ps. and subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 7,04,667.88ps. within four weeks from this. The rest of the order is left undisturbed.
-
1987 (12) TMI 39 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Cigarettes - Exemption Notification - Interpretation - Quantification of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ccepting the allegations as it is, a case of bias and/or likelihood of bias had been made out and there was no materials on record also to show or to indicate that the respondent No. 3 had passed any order for search and seizure and/or had occasions to deal with the Intelligence Report if any I am unable to entertain these objections on the ground of bias on the basis of some mere speculative and vague allegations and/or on the basis of some hypothesis. The respondent No. 3 may be the head of the department and may be that as a matter of routine administrative acts he might have performed duties and passed orders but that cannot by itself prove the case of bias. Accordingly I do not find any merit on the allegations of bias and accordingly I also reject the same. Accordingly, all the contentions raised by Mr. Nariman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fails and the rule is discharged, all interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund - Mistake of law - Estoppel - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... der Article 226 of the Constitution. Since petitioner is guilty of laches in respect of its claim for the amount paid during June, 1973 to December, 1973, 1974, 1975 and January, 1976 to June, 1976 it is not entitled to any relief. 13. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed in part. A direction is issued to opposite party to refund excise duty amounting to Rs. 4,79,682 and 21,16,952.90 levied between 1st July, 1976 and 17th June, 1977 on Fanta and Coca-Cola respectively. The opposite party shall further refund Rs. 7,92,597.20 excise duty collected between 18th March, 1972 and May, 1973. The claim of petitioner, however, for refund Rs. 73,660.90 for period between June, 1973 to December, 1973, Rs. 6,77,986.40 excise duty and Rs. 3,38,968.20 auxiliary duty for 1974, Rs. 7,39,198.00 and auxiliary duty of Rs. 3,00,599.00 for 1975 and Rs. 27,16,118.00 and auxiliary duty Rs. 24,461.50 for 1976 is rejected. In view of divided success parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (12) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Search and seizure - Detention of goods ... ... ... ... ..... deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. 6. It will be noticed that the pre-condition to seizure is the reason to believe that the i goods are liable to confiscation . It is not necessary that the officer concerned should give his reasons for forming such subjective satisfaction but the fact of subjective satisfaction must appear on the face of the order. So long as the satisfaction is not recorded, there is not right to seize. Till today no order has been passed by any Customs Officer seizing the goods under the reasonable belief as contemplated under Section 110(1). 7. Though the matter was at the show cause stage, however, on reply being filed by the respondent, we thought it fit to dispose of the matter. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The detention of the goods in dispute is quashed and it is directed that the goods be returned to the petitioner forthwith. 9. There is no order as to costs of the writ petition.
-
1987 (12) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Classification List - Natural justice - Iron and steel products ... ... ... ... ..... ured by the petitioners. 14. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The orders passed by the Assistant Collector dated 30-6-1987 (Annexure-j) contained in the classification lists dated 9-3-1986 (Annexure-C to the petition) are quashed and set aside. In view of the subsequent orders passed by the Collector and in view of what we have observed above, it is not necessary to grant any relief with respect to the two letters written by the Superintendent on 9-6-1987 and 16-6-1987 Annexures D and G respectively. As we are quashing the orders dated 30-6-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector, as a necessary consequence, the show cause-cum-demand notice dated 6-7-1987 Annexure-L and the letter dated 6-7-1987 Annexure-M are also quashed. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the above extent only, with no order as to costs. The Assistant Collector shall now proceed further with the process of scrutiny and grant of approval to the classification lists filed by the petitioners.
....
|
