Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1993 1993 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 272 Records

• 1993 (7) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Import - OGL

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ence issued under Entry 23(1) of the First Schedule to the Act, the case stands concluded in view of notice dated February 15,1982 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Commerce. The notice recites that in accordance with the import policy as amended, the import of Polyester Filament Yarn based flat, first quality (fully/partly reoriented) is allowed under OGL to actual users (industrial) in accordance with the conditions laid down. In view of the notice issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, it is obvious that the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector under misconception and consequently the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show cause notice. The show cause notice is therefore required to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer(s). The bond furnished by the petitioners to stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Modvat - Merger/amalgamation of factories

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases, further wanted an observation with regard to W.P. No. 882 of 1990. According to the learned counsel, an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, and in the event of the petitioner in W.P. No. 882 of 1990 succeeding before the Appellate Authority in the pending appeal, the fruits of such success must not be denied in view of the disposal of the writ petition under this Order. 5. In view of the above, the proceedings impugned in these writ petitions are set aside, and the respondents are at liberty to pass fresh orders, if necessary, in the light of Central Board s letter dated 23-12-1992, in particular, paragraph 3 extracted above. 6. It is made clear that the petitioner in W.P. 882 of 1990 in the event of getting any relief from the Appellate Authority, will be entitled to it, in addition to the relief granted under this Order. 7. In the result, both the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Adjudication not initiated for ten years in spite of Court's permission

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... itted to clear the consignment on furnishing bank guarantee. It was made clear that the Department is at liberty to serve show cause notice and pass adjudication order. In spite of the specific direction for the last about ten years the Department has not taken any steps whatsoever. In these circumstances Mr. Kantawala, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the authorities of the Department was satisfied with the reply filed by the petitioners to the query memo. The respondents have not filed any return. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the relief. We are making it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners. 3. Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer(s). As the goods are already cleared, the only direction required is that the bank guarantee and the bond furnished by the petitioner to stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Redemption fine

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 1st May, 1993 being order No. 24 of 1993 in respect of another consignment imported by the appellant. He shall give details of the process of calculation by which he may come to his finding as regards the quantum of redemption fine. The Additional Collector shall pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties and after considering all the evidence within 3 weeks from date. If possible he shall pass the order within 2 weeks as the importer is suffering demurrage. (d) If any documents are sought to be relied by the Customs Department, such documents shall be disclosed to the appellant so that the appellant can make submissions or produce any other documents in rebuttal. 15. In the event any of the parties is aggrieved by the order that may be passed, liberty is given to the parties to file supplementary affidavit challenging such order in the pending appeal. The application is thus disposed of. All parties to act on a signed copy of the dictated order on the usual undertaking.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Refund - Jurisdiction - Excise duty - Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... by the petitioners without treating any part of the claim as barred by limitation. It is also necessary to direct the respondents to determine the claim on merits within a period of 12 weeks. The petitioners are at liberty to produce the requisite documents before the authorities. 10. Accordingly, petition partly succeeds and the respondents are directed to examine the claim of refund made by the petitioners by giving an opportunity to the petitioners to produce the documents and other materials. The respondents are directed to determine the claim for refund on merits within a period of 12 weeks from today and while determining such claim, the respondents shall not dismiss any part of the claim on the ground of limitation. It is made clear that part of the refund amount already withdrawn by the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of this Court is not open for reconsideration before the Excise authorities. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Import of car by handicapped person

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r determination, is whether the petitioner satisfies these conditions. 4. On perusal of certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, it is obvious that disability suffered by the petitioner is not such which justify import of specially designed car. The middle finger and ring finger of the right hand of the petitioner was amputated due to some accident. The loss of two fingers has not affected the use of right hand. The perusal of certificate indicates that there is no other physical disability. In our judgment, the loss of two fingers of right hand is not a disability which would justify import of specially designed car. The petitioner is working as a partner in Export House and, in our judgment, the decision of the Screening Committee that the disability does not entitle the petitioner to import a car cannot be faulted. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Steel Coils

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d, therefore. Entry No. 73.13 is attracted. The submission is not correct. Perusal of notes in Chapter 73 of the Customs Tariff indicates that coils for re-rolling means coil semi-finished hot rolled products. A perusal of note (k) unmistakably establishes that the iron or steel coils even if hot rolled or cold rolled would squarely fall within the ambit of Entry 73.08. Mr. Kantawala also submitted that in respect of import of identical material by M/s. Nagarjuna Steel Limited, the Department had permitted clearance under Entry 73.08. In our judgment, the action of the respondents in assessing the bills of entry under 73.13 cannot be sustained. 3. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). As the goods are already cleared by interim order on furnishing Bank Guarantee, the only relief now required to be granted is to direct that the bank guarantee shall stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Appeal by department

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y Collector of Customs (Appeals) had acquired finality and it is not now open for the department to claim that inspite of that order, there was short levied duty in respect of import made by the petitioners. In view of this undisputed position, no purpose would be served by Collector of Customs directing the Assistant Collector to file an appeal for setting aside the order of withdrawal of demand notice dated May 29, 1980. For this reason, the order of the Collector of Central Excise is required to be set aside. We wish to make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the reasons furnished by the Collector of Central Excise for reopening the order withdrawing demand notice. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and impugned order dated April 7, 1983 is set aside. The appeal preferred by the Assistant Collector in pursuance of the order which is now set aside will also automatically fail. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Additional Customs Duty (Countervailing duty) - Catheters

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ef Controller of Imports and Exports in respect of the Import and Export Policy for April 1988 to March 1991 Foley Balloon Catheters have been included after the words male and female urinary incontinency sets (See Item 28 of Notification 339/86) and are freely importable under OGL. 19. Therefore, in spite of the exclusion of Foley Balloon Catheters from the benefit of the exemption granted under Notification 208-Cus., Foley Balloon Catheters are not liable to pay Additional Duty under the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 20. The writ application must be allowed. The order of the Assistant Collector dated 28-5-1993 passed pursuant to an interim order of the Court, is set aside. Let writs issue as prayed. There will be no order as to costs. 21. Let xerox copy of this judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the judgment and on payment of usual charges.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Pledgee's right over the auction proceeds of confiscated vessel - Confiscation of vessel

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... cised by the Customs Authorities under Section 115 of the Customs Act was due to the fact that the vessel was used as a means of transport in smuggling of goods. The auction sale of the vessel was after the order of confiscation was passed and it hardly requires to be stated that such auction sale can never be subject to the right of the pledgee. It is difficult to imagine how the Bank can ever claim that the proceeds of the auction sale of the vessel should be handed over to the Bank in satisfaction of the amount due for respondent No. 2. A reference was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the decision of Supreme Court reported in 1971 Vol. 41 Company Cases 591 Bank of Bihar (Now State Bank of India) v. State of Bihar and Others . The judgment has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. In our judgment, petition is without any substance and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, rule is discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Refund (Customs) - Short-shipment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y any duty. It is now well settled that in case the duty is recovered in respect of items which are not even imported, then the bar of Section 27 of the Act will not be attracted. In our judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary to treat the application for refund dated January 22,1976 as one in respect of duty recovered in April 1976 and as the bar of Section 27 has no application, the petitioners are entitled to the entire amount of refund. For these reasons, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below are required to be set aside and to hold that the petitioners are entitled to the amount of refund. There is no dispute as regards the quantum of refund the petitioners are entitled to. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and the respondents are directed to refund to the petitioners Rs. 66,452.13 within four weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Refund - Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and copy of which is annexed at Exhibit K to the petition is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal, as now in existence, for fresh decision. The Tribunal will proceed to examine (a) Whether the imported items i.e. Propylene Glycol and Paraphenetidine are drug intermediates? (b) Whether these items if drug intermediates, are entitled to the benefits of exemption notification and (c) If so, whether the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the amended provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. It is made clear that the Tribunal shall proceed to determine these questions without taking into consideration the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Act. As the proceedings are pending from 1979 onwards, the Tribunal is requested to finally decide the matter expeditiously and as far as possible before the expiry of six months from the date of receipt of the order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Adjudication - Penalty not imposable

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... r survives for consideration. Shri Lokur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the respondents should be permitted to complete the adjudication proceedings at least for the purpose of determining whether the petitioners are liable to pay any penalty amount. We are not inclined to accede to the submission for more than one reason. In the first instance, the respondents have no explanation why the adjudication proceedings were not completed for ten years. Secondly, imposition of penalty, if at all, after a lapse of ten years is not just and fair. In these circumstances, in our judgment, to accede to the submission of the learned counsel that the respondents should be permitted to complete the adjudication proceedings cannot be accepted. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to relief. 3. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Import licence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rt licence. The import licence clearly recites that the actual user can import items set out in Appendix 5 and 8 for manufacture of end-products. It is not in dispute that the petitioners desired to use imported items for manufacture of end-products set out in the appendix. In these circumstances, in our judgment, it is not permissible for the Customs Authorities to proceed to confiscate the goods by claiming that the licence was not valid because the actual user is likely to use the imported items for manufacture of end-products which are not set out in DGTD certificate. In our judgment, the orders passed by the two authorities below are entirely unsustainable and are required to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). As the goods were permitted to be cleared by interim order on furnishing bank guarantee, the only relief required to be granted is to discharge the bank guarantee and to issue the detention certificate.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Refund - Contempt of Court - Writ jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ated period. 4. Shri Desai then submitted by referring to decision of Gauhati High Court reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 3 (Gau.) (Kitply Industries Ltd. v. C. Syiemiang) that once Section 11B was amended, then the department can never be guilty of committing contempt for not obeying the orders of the Court. We are afraid, we cannot accede to such extreme submission. The writ issued by this Court cannot be nullified in this manner and more so, when the department sought modification of the writ and that prayer was turned down. 5. In our judgment, the respondents have clearly disobeyed the writ issued by this Court. Before committing respondent No. 2 under the Contempt of Courts Act, we propose to give one more opportunity to the respondents to refund the excise duty as claimed by the petitioners. We direct respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs. 20,66,760.21 in this Court within one week from today. In case the respondent No. 2 fails to make deposit, then further orders will be passed.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether "Projection Television sets" manufactured by the respondent are the same as the "Broadcast Television receiver sets" for the purpose of earning exemption under the central excise laws?

  Held that:- We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Projector Vision - Projection television sets are capable of receiving television broadcasts as is being done by any other broadcast television receiver set but at the same time the two are not the same. An ordinary television set has a fixed image in the mind of the consumer in this country. One never visualises a television set having a projection-unit and a head-screen mounted at a long distance. A television set - in the imagination of the consumer - is a compact set with inbuilt screen which adores the drawing room and bed room. A television set in the market costs about ₹ 15,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- whereas the respondents' product costs between ₹ 1,20,000/- to ₹ 1,50,000/-. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Assistant Collector and the Collector.

  We, further, agree with the Assistant Collector that the product of the respondent fully answers the description of "Video Projectors" in terms of the Notification No. 160/86. It is not disputed, rather it is the case of the respondent that the "projection television set" manufactured by them receives the televised image. 'Video' is the transmission and reception of a televised image.The product of the respondent-company projects on a screen the video signals transmitted from the television station and received by it. The Assistant Collector has, thus, rightly reached the conclusion that the product of the respondent answers the description of a 'video projector'. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 are inter se independent, distinct and exclusive or are they inter-woven, inter-connected and inter-playing?

  Held that:- In clear terms, it has thus been held that the period angle causing affectation under Section 110(2), would only pertain to the seizure of goods. The validity of notice under Section 124, for which no period has been laid within which it is required to be given is not affected. The seizure may have, after the expiry of six months or after the expiry of extended period of six months entitled the owner or the person concerned the possession of the seized goods. This obviously is so because the matter at that stage is under investigation. On launching proceedings under Chapter XIV, Section 124 enjoins issuance of a notice for which no period has been fixed within which notice may be given. The difference is obvious because this goes as a step towards trial. The ratio of this Court afore-quoted in Charandas Malhotra's case [1971 (2) TMI 41 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] thus settles the question afore-posed and the answer is that these two Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other, resulting in the survival of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might have to be returned, or stand returned, in terms of Section 110 of the Act, after the expiry of the permissible period of seizure.

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Refund - Unjust enrichment - Composite or cum-duty price - Limitation - Duty collected without authority of law - Appeal

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a total or partial waiver of the redemption fine? - Held that:- The importers' contention that the redemption fine should be wholly waived or substantially reduced as their action in importing the goods under OGL was bona fide is not well founded. Even if the transaction has in fact resulted in a loss (we cannot delve into it for the first time in this Court) it will not make any difference. We feel that taking cover under the earlier orders passed in the case of M/s. Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., and the letter of the STC, the importers have tried to create the impression that they were innocent victims of the subsequent interpretation put on the relevant entry, ignoring the fact that the licences were revalidated on certain terms and conditions which did not permit import except through the STC. We are, therefore, satisfied that the import under OGL was not a bona fide act. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals as well as the writ petition with costs

  ---

• 1993 (7) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Actual Cost, Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... allowance ? Though the above question is covered by the decision in Srinivas Industries v. CIT 1991 188 ITR 22 (Mad), the Supreme Court has granted special leave to the assessee against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on an identical question, which decision is in CIT v. Janak Steel Tubes (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 536. Similarly, in a special leave petition filed by the Department against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 632 involving an identical question of law, the Supreme Court has granted special leave to the Department to appeal against the said decision by order dated April 22, 1991, in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 1238 and 1239 of 1989 and 5571 of 1991, Under these circumstances, We are inclined to hold that 4 referable question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal is directed to state the case referring the aforesaid question of law for the this court. No costs.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314