|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 267 Records
-
1994 (1) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs of the authorities cannot be treated as a finding to the effect that single yarn and doubled/multifolded yarn are one and the same goods. He submits they are not. He relies upon the decision of this Court in Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - 1988 (37) E.L.T. 471 (SC) (1988) 4 SCC 315. 6.We are concerned in this case with the only question whether single yarn attracts duty or not. In view of the finding of the Tribunal affirming the finding of the Assistant Collector that single yarn is a completely manufactured product, it cannot be disputed that it attracts duty. We are not concerned with the question whether the doubling/multifolding of the said yarn results in different goods or not and whether duty is leviable on doubled/multifolded yarn. We need only say that the Tribunal is right in its opinion that the single yarn is subject to duty though used in the manufacture of fabrics in a continuous process of manufacture. 7.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Job work - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... quoted above. But the intended purpose which appears from this notification is to grant certain exemptions to the manufacturer and that has to be construed in the context for which such exemption has been granted. 21.Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 intended to give the benefit of exemption to such job workers and in the present case the rails which are being supplied by the Railway Board to the petitioner for converting them into points and crossings remain the same and, therefore, the petitioner assessee is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid notification. 22.Since I have decided the basic issue in favour of the petitioner assessee I need not express my opinion regarding the limitation which has been pleaded by the petitioner for issuing the notices as contemplated in Section 11A of the Act. 23.In the result, I allow the writ petition and quash the notices and demand raised by the respondents against the petitioner.
-
1994 (1) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication - Evidence - Nature and extent of - Penalty (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... Devarajan. The petitioner was not in a position to explain as to why those illiterate persons should implicate him. There is one other significant factor relied on by the first respondent, namely, that the petitioner had in fact admitted that he was earlier involved in certain smuggling activities. These reasonings given by the first respondent have once again been considered by the Tribunal and they did not see any reason to differ from the findings of the first respondent. The Tribunal rightly observes that the adjudicating authorities are concerned only with the preponderance of probability indicating the involvement of the petitioner and cannot be tied down by strict rules of evidence. What is more, the Tribunal thought it fit to reduce the penalty from Rs. 25,000 to Rs.10,000. I have no material before me to interfere with the said factual findings of the two authorities. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Confiscation, fine, penalty and duty - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... tsoever till, at any rate, the goods were lying with the department and not released, there was no scope, need or necessity for the department to send the sample of the product for examination for the technical report, particularly when the Inspection Officers themselves witnessed the actual manufacturing of the cotton furnishing fabrics as also the previously manufactured similar product stocked in the premises. For all the reasons stated above, in my view, the impugned order of the Tribunal, confirming the orders of the authorities below except in respect of a substantial portion of the penalty levied, do not suffer from any patent error of law or perversity of approach. The factual findings recorded by the Tribunal are well-justified, in my view, on the materials available before it and relied upon by the authorities in support of their conclusions. The challenge to the impugned order, therefore, has no merit and the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Import - Raw silk/tusser silk ... ... ... ... ..... olicy itself. By way of the clarificatory circular it appears that the respondents stopped the import made by the petitioners against REP Licences/Exim Scrip issued under the 1990 Policy though the import that was covered under Clause 4 of the 1992 Policy. From the averments made by the parties in the petition and the counter-affidavit it also appears that this circular was never gazetted whereas the petitioners entered into a contract against REP Licences/Exim Scrip on the basis of the transitional arrangement specified in the new Policy itself before the circular was issued. The circular being contrary to the 1992 Policy itself cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 8.Under the circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The impugned circular dated 17th December, 1992 is quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith release the goods covered under the Bills of lading - Annexures C to the writ petition - upon payment of customs duty against REP Licences/Exim Scrip. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... se of the petitioner and has extended maximum possible concession in favour of the petitioner in the matter of pre-deposit of the duty amount which is more than 37 lakhs. 5.The submission made by the petitioner referred to above was also taken into consideration by the Tribunal and in this regard submission made that the petitioner is suffering huge losses is of no consequence and on this ground it cannot be inferred that petitioner is not in a position to deposit duty amount which has already been reduced by the Tribunal. 6.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred two decisions rendered in M.C. Goel v. Union of India and Others 1988 (35) E.L.T. 449 (All.) and U.P. Lamination v. Union of India and Others 1985 (20) E.L.T. 243 (All.) . These decisions are distinguishable on facts of the instant case, hence are of no avail to the petitioner. 7.The writ petition, thus, lacks merit. No interference in writ jurisdiction is called for. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1994 (1) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund under writ jurisdiction - Limitation - Unjust enrichment - Refund - Interest - Duty collected without authority of law
-
1994 (1) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Cinematograph films - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... not exceeding 9.5 mm. and the para following the expression gives indication that the said variety of films was not treated as a class into itself and was not given unconditional exemption. 7. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that the Explanation should be read as restricted only to one of the two varieties of the exempted category viz the cinematograph films exclusively meant for children irrespective of its width. Neither the language of the Notification nor the intendment warrants such a view, which would lead to unintended absurd results. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Wood Papers Ltd. (1990 (47) E.L.T. 500 ) has highlighted the difference in principles for interpreting an exemption Notification and a statute and learned counsel for the respondents is right in contending that the Notification is in the nature of exception and will have to be read as such and as a whole. 9. In the result, the petition fails. Rule discharged. No costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appeal - Order - Res judicata - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... consequential reliefs. 8. In the circumstances, in our view, both the 2nd Respondent as well as the 3rd Respondent had considered claims of the Petitioners for refund of excise duty even on merits. No appeal from the Order dated 24th June, 1985 passed by the 3rd Respondent having been preferred by the Department to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the said Act, the said order became final and binding and further Show Cause Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent on 22nd August, 1985 could in law be not issued and as such, is illegal and bad in law. The said Order dated 30th August, 1985 passed by the 2nd Respondent on such Show Cause Notice is also bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, both the Orders dated 28th August, 1985 and 30th August, 1985 being Exhibits Q and T to the Petition are quashed and set aside. The Petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Exemption Notification No. 137/81-C.E. - Vires of - Matches ... ... ... ... ..... petitioners to contend that in according exemption, the Govt. of India must have regard to certain or one of the many aspects pertaining to the manufacture of matches. So long as it cannot be stated that the aspects taken into account by the Government were wholly irrelevant or extraneous or alien to the purpose or object of granting exemption itself, it is not for the petitioners to dictate to the State of the need for its priorities in the matter of grant of a concession and in such circumstances, normally, this Court will hesistate to intervene or interfere to impose itself or its views of the priorities or relevant aspects or circumstances. The decision in The Union of India v. Rizwan International (1993 (I) M.L.J., 569) also has no application to the peculiar problem that is now under consideration before us. 37.For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, we dismiss all the writ petitions. However, there wil be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ngwith a certified copy of the order passed by this Court within 2 weeks from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order and the tribunal will consider these three points and will pass a speaking order in the light of the submission made on these three points at the instance of the petitioner and will pass appropriate order, after affording opportunity to the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of filing of the representation alongwith a certified copy of this order. In view of the direction issued by us, directing the tribunal to re-consider the matter on the three counts, referred to above, it is not necessary to quash the order of the tribunal as the equity between the parties will be adjusted if the decision is given by the tribunal on three grounds mentioned above. 8. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of finally. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the counsel on payment of usual charges within three days.
-
1994 (1) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Rate of duty (Customs) on warehoused ... ... ... ... ..... this case, though part of the duty had been paid on 28-4-1983, the duty paid goods and that part of the goods on which such duty had not been paid had not been cleared, and the clearance of the goods from the warehouse was only on 28-11-1983. Interest claimed by the customs authorities is nothing but compensation for delayed clearance and the rate of interest is nothing but a standard measure of computing the compensation for delayed removal or overstay of the consignment in the warehouse. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the period and as the company had, without any justifiable reason, not removed the warehoused goods, within a reasonable time, despite numerous opportunities given to it to do so, the levy of interest cannot be taken exception to. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 1470 of 1991 is allowed with costs and W.P. No. 10035 of 1983 will stand dismissed with costs. In view of this W.A. No. 917 of 1992 is dismissed . No costs, counsel fee Rupees Five hundred.
-
1994 (1) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... eard by a Special Bench constituted by the President. 6. But, in this case, it is clear on going through the records that the question that has to be decided is, whether the petitioner has supplied levy sugar at the disposal of the Government or not. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the petitioner is entitled to concessional rate of levy of excise duty. Otherwise, the petitioner is liable to pay at the full rate. The question whether the petitioner has placed at the disposal of the Government the levy sugar depends only upon the facts and it does not depend upon the interpretation of the notification. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal at Madras will dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
-
1994 (1) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ayurvedic Medicament ... ... ... ... ..... the manner stated in the petition with the named ingredients is a medicament which is exclusively Ayurvedic notwithstanding the presence of the preservatives being allopathic ingredients mentioned above. It is further declared that they are entitled to the absolute exemption of excise duty in regard to Kafbin under Notification No. 32/89 mentioned above. The order of the Assistant Collector mentioned above is quashed and there shall be a writ of certiorari absolute issued in that regard. The respondents shall hereafter permit the petitioner to clear their entire consignments of Kafbin from their factory without let or hindrance and without any imposition of any excise duty until of course the time, if ever, the exemption is withdrawn, or the petitioner happens to change the constituents of Kafbin so as to render it non-Ayurvedic. 44.Rule be drawn up expeditiously. 45.All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1994 (1) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Customs - Glass beads imported ... ... ... ... ..... if any, that might appear to be payable by the petitioner. 13.The respondents will be free to conduct the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice if they find time to continue the same hereafter. Departmental remedies open to the petitioner might also be resorted to by them notwithstanding the pendency of the writ application. However, such departmental proceedings and future orders, if any passed, will abide by the result of the writ and no effect will be given to such orders or levies without leave of Court. 14.Since the respondents have appeared no formal rule need be drawn up or served. 15.Affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed by three weeks from date hereof, affidavit-in-reply is to be filed a week thereafter and the matter will appear in the list the working day following. 16.Stay of operation of this order is prayed for but the same is refused. 17.All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1994 (1) TMI 92 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... submitted by the learned counsel that the period for limita- tion prescribed for filing the appeal has elapsed in the meantime. We therefore direct that in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today, the appeal shall not be dismissed as time-barred and the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court as well as in this Court be treated sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Subject to these observations, the S.L.Ps are dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the petitioner by tomorrow.
-
1994 (1) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Investigation and enquiry - Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... ecial Leave Petitions have been filed and the proceedings of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had been stayed. In fact, it is only on the basis of the interim order of the apex court that I had admitted these two writ petitions and granted an interim order. But I am of the opinion that when the writ petitions are being disposed of finally I cannot adopt an interim order of the apex court as constituting the ratio of the judgment of the apex court. On the other hand, the considered judgment of the Karnataka High Court forms the basis for my decision. That apart I have already indicated from the ..... of DEEC Scheme in Chapter XIX of the Policy for 1990-93, as well as the form of undertaking in the Appendix XIX-E, which in my opinion conclusively establishes the jurisdiction of the Customs Authorities to proceed with the investigation and enquiry. 15. For all the above reasons the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. All the interim orders are vacated.
-
1994 (1) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Modvat - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 7-I of the Rules cannot be substantiated. Certain decisions have been cited with regard to the plea of limitation and I do not propose to refer those decisions because the factual basis for the plea of limitation, does not exist. The only argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners, is that there was no question of any provisional assessment and the respondents having accepted the claim for credit cannot now turn round and say that it was only a provisional assessment. This argument cannot be accepted because the petitioners have taken credit on inputs which are not supported by the duty paying documents and also without waiting for the permission of the Assistant Collector to be granted under Rule 57H. In this view of the matter neither Rule 57-I nor Section 11 A will come to the aid of the petitioners. 11. For all the above reasons, no relief can be granted in any of the writ petitions and all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Tobacco - Maintenance of accounts ... ... ... ... ..... to the independent workers and collect the finished goods. The respondents were not agreeable to this method of supply of raw materials since the quantity of beedies manufactured could not be properly assessed. After service of notice in the writ petition, the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, has now agreed as follows - The matter has been examined. As regards having collecting centres, the same can be allowed provided such centres are registered and necessary records maintained as required under Central Excise Law. Both the parties agree that the above statement of the Collector can be recorded and the respondents directed to permit the contractors to supply the raw materials to the respective home workers and maintain the records as suggested by the Collector. The writ petition is accordingly ordered by recording the statement of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai. No further orders are necessary in this writ petition. There will however, be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (1) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
The purpose of setting up this High Power Committee was to ensure that as far as possible, the controversies between a Ministry and a Ministry of the Government of India, a Ministry and a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India and between Public Sector Undertakings themselves are resolved by recourse to the High Power Committee and that time consuming and expensive litigation is avoided. Wherever appeals, petitions etc. are filed without the clearance of the High Power Committee, so as to save limitation, the appellant or the petitioner as the case may be, shall within a month from such filing, refer the matter to the High Power Committee with prior notice to the Designated Authority in Cabinet Secretariat of Government of India authorised to receive notices in that behalf.
The High Power Committee shall submit a half yearly report--- instead of quarterly report as earlier indicated---to this Court as to the number of matters referred to it and the manner in which they were dealt with and disposed of
............
|
