Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (6) 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 21 to 40 of 161 Records

• 1995 (6) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
  

  Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d Board rsquo s circular and also the practice of the department in accepting the authenticated copies of gate passes and also referred to the Trade Notices of Bombay and Delhi Collectorates and taken them as rel shy evant factors for considering the similar issue. We also note that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court cited supra has also emphasised that a liberal view will have to be taken when the documents relied upon are proved to be authenticated and accepted covering the goods in question in a situation where the original document was lost. Therefore, taking all these factors into consid shy eration and also keeping in mind the fact that the department is not disputing the authenticity or reliability of the photostat copy of gate passes to the goods in question and also keeping in mind the fact that the plea that the original gate pass was lost is not challenged, we set aside the impugned order and upheld the order of the original authority and allow the appeal.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... w cause notice and the order of the Collector does not show any basis for invoking the extended period specifically in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Gokak Patel Volkart Limited v. Collector of Central Excise 1987 (28) E.L.T. 53 (S.C.) and this Tribunal rsquo s decision cited above. There is also not a word in the order of the Collector justifying imposition of penalty of over Rs. 1 crore. Duty prima facie would be liable to be paid for a period of 6 months preceding the issue of the show cause notice. This, according to Sh. Sridharan, has already been done by depositing over Rs. 7.94 lakhs being the duty payable for the period 1-8-1991 to 3-2-1994. However, no evidence in support has been produced. On evidence of such payment produced within 2 months of the receipt of this order, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining duty amount and penalty and stay its recovery till the pendency of the appeal. Matter to be listed for reporting compliance in due course.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 176 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... w known as Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road) East By 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road and 1B, Ballygunge Circular Road and plot or land measuring 3 Cottahs, 10 Chittacks and 40 Square Feet described hereinbelow South By portion of 1, Ballygunge Circular Road and West By Lower Rawdon Street, Calcutta. (2) All that piece or parcel of vacant land measuring 3 Cottahs, 10 Chittacks, 40 Square Feet formed out of the remaining portion of the premises mentioned and described in the preceding sub-paragraph (1) and butted and bounded in the manner following, that is to say South By Ballygunge Circular Road North By 1A, Ballygunge Circular Road West By plot of land measuring 4 Bighas, 15 Cottahs, 13 Chittacks and 9 Square Feet described in the preceding sub-paragraph (1) and East By Ballygunge Circular Road. Part III (Short description of the stocks, shares and other choses in action of ACL) NIL Witness Shri V.K. Khanna, Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court this 23rd day of June, 1995.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 175 - HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... on of the Leasehold properties of NTCIL) NIL Part III (Short description of stocks, shares, debentures and other choses in action of NTCIL) 1.35,66,758 Shares of McLeod Russel (India) Limited. 2.500 Shares of ABC Tea Workers Welfare Services Limited 3.2,11,538 Shares of Nestle India Limited 4.25,50,013 Shares of India Foils Limited 5.6,10,000 Shares of Niagara Investments Limited 6.1,14,000 Shares of McNally Bharat Engineering Co. Limited 7.10,20,000 Shares of Kilburn Chemicals Limited 8.57,000 Shares of Standard Batteries Limited 9.1,56,600 Units of the Unit Trust of India 10.5 fully paid-up Debenture (1993-6000) of Woodlands Hospital and Medical Research Centre Limited of an aggregate face value of Rs. 6,000 11.5 fully paid-up Debenture of Shillong Club Limited of an aggregate face value of Rs. 2,300 12.National Defence Savings Certificates of an aggregate face value of Rs. 2,000. Witness Shri V.K. Khanna, Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court this 15th day of June, 1995.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 174 - DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  

  Deficiency in service

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... . 12,900 being balance amount was encashed on the following day i e. 29-6-1991. It was on account of immediate payment that R-l agreed to sell the shares below the market rate. The explanation furnished by the appellant appears to be quite plausible. Even if the same is not considered fully satisfactory, there is no manner of doubt about the words used in the agreement. Annexure-C and the receipt Annexure-D that no exception was made with regard to bonus shares and dividend which came to be declared only long after the sale transaction. 10. For these reasons we allow the appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum and direct respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 23,598.50 alongwith 12 per cent interest per annun. We further hold that there was no deficiency in service as far as respondent No. 4 Hindustan Lever is concerned. The complainants shall also be entitled to costs which are assessed as Rs. 500. The appeal is disposed of in these terms. Parties be informed. Appeal allowed

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 158 - MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
  

  Unfair trade practice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... his Commission in D.G. (I and R) v. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. 1994 1 SCL 239. In the said ruling, the Commission observed that raising of capital by way of equity does not amount to carrying on of a trade. In deciding the matter on that basis, the Full Bench, had in view, a ruling of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das 1994 1 SCL 19 wherein it was laid down that the activity involved in raising capital by means of a public issue of shares inviting investors to participate in the share capital of a company does not partake the character of any lsquo trade rsquo or lsquo trade practice rsquo . In view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Commission supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund rsquo s case (supra) , the charges in the NOE in the instant case cannot be entertained under the Act. In the premises, the NOE shall stand discharged. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 157 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
  

  Annual return

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e company and the personnel in charge of the company are liable to be prosecuted and the complaints are not liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation. Fresh period of limitation starts on each day until the requirements of the provisions are satisfied. We can take only this interpretation bearing in mind the social object of the legislation which is intended to be achieved. We also hold that the decision of Justice Bhat (as he then was) in Sudarsan Chits (India) Ltd. s case (supra) is correctly decided and we affirm the same. 19. In this view of the matter, we hold that the complaints which are challenged in the Crl. M.Cs. are not liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation. The Court below was justified in taking cognizance of the complaints. We make it clear that we have dealt only with the question of limitation and the other points available to the petitioner are left open to be urged before the trial court. With this observation, the Crl. M.Cs. are dismissed.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 144 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Demand and penalty - Loss of input whether irretrievable or not

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... However, according to the learned Advocate as per the Survey Report the loss was due to oxidation of zinc. This Survey Report was not brought to the notice of the learned lower authority. The learned lower authority it is seen does not appear to have taken note of the leakage of the zinc as pleaded. In case certain quantity of molten zinc is lost before it can be used in the process of manufacture a different consideration for the Modvat purposes would arise. I hold that inasmuch as the Insurance Survey Report has a bearing on the issue and the plea of leakage of zinc was not considered by the learned lower authority the matter requires to be reconsidered by the said authority. I therefore remand the matter to the learned lower authority for denovo consideration after taking into consideration the Insurance Survey Report, plea of leakage urged before the Tribunal and after affording the appellants an opportunity of hearing. Appeal is thus allowed by remand in the above terms.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ies, Delhi were identical and their assessable value was determinable in terms of Section 14(1)(a) on the basis of the price of imports by M/s. Lumax Industries. We agree with the JDR that the price of the indigenously produced Polymethyl Methacrylate Moulding Powder by M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. relied upon by the appellants is not relevant for the purpose of valuation of the imported goods. For this reason and in view of the finding of the Tribunal in its Order No. 332/88-A, dated 10-6-1988 the charge of mis-declaration of the goods by the appellants had been established, we hold that there is no force at all in the appellants contention that the value of their imported goods was determinable on the basis of the invoice price of M/s. Naresh Udyog, M/s. Varsha Industries and M/s. Graphic Arts relied upon by the appellants. 8. emsp In view of the foregoing, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings in the impugned order. The appeal is therefore rejected.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 142 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and is merely used to dilute powder and therefore cannot be said to be used as an input in relation to manufacture of an end product under the Modvat scheme. 3. emsp Shri Ranganath, the learned Executive of the respondent company adopted the reasonings in the impugned order. 4. emsp We have gone through the entire records and considered the submissions made before us. We are informed that Mafron is used as a solvent to dilute Vydax which is applied on the edge of the blade for giving sharpness. Therefore, having regard to the use of the solvent in question as a diluting powder for sharpening the edge of the blade, we are of the view that the reasonings in the impugned order is sustainable in law and the appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 141 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cess

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ing assigned to the goods produced in India should also be assigned for the purpose of charging of cess. 3. emsp None for the respondents. 4. emsp It is observed that the learned lower appellate authority has gone by the technical meaning assigned to the term ldquo Vegetables rdquo and also drawn an analogy from the meaning given to the ldquo vegetable rdquo in the context of Cash Compensatory Scheme and under that Scheme, he has stated, that the mushrooms have been excluded from the scope of the term ldquo Vegetable rdquo . We observe that the rationale of the learned lower authority cannot be considered as per verse and it cannot be said that prima facie his reasonings is bad in law. The matter involves only a demand and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee. In view of this, we hold that the prayer for stay can not be sranted. However, it is open to the department to take out an application for early hearing, as the issue may have a recurring effect.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... I, the Collector has not given the reason for rejecting the appellants contention that the ex-factory price which was ascertainable was to be the basis for valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and has proceeded to hold that the assessable value rsquo of the disputed goods was determinable on the basis of the price at which goods were sold by the appellants from the Depots. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the order appealed against shows lack of application of mind. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in accordance with law on the basis of the contemporaneous record including the price lists, if any, in Part I which may have been filed by the appellants during the relevant period. We direct that before deciding the matter the appellants should be given suitable opportunity for personal hearing. 4. emsp The appeal is, therefore allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 138 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
  

  Export - DEEC Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... seem to have examined the issue as per the angle pleaded by the appellants. It is not possible to accept the submission of the ld. JDR that it is entirely a new point because in the order of the Collector (Appeals) there is a mention about the DEEC book examination. The examination as per the angle urged by the appellants is therefore necessary. Because it involves examining some documents to satisfy that prior export has already been effected, the only alternative available is to remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals), before whom all the evidence should be produced by the appellants. The Collector (Appeals), after examining the issue in its totality, may come to the conclusion as to whether in view of those circumstances, it would be necessary to order confiscation and also imposition of penalty. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The Collector (Appeals) may attempt to dispose of this matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 137 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Refund - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... pdt. after noticing that the appellants had paid higher duty based on the approved classification list than the actual payable, indicated that the appellants had paid excess duty and could claim the same by filing a refund claim. He could not have allowed the refund nor it could be claimed by the appellants under Rule 173-I as the duty had been correctly paid in terms of Rule 173-I. The only way the appellants could claim refund was by way of a refund claim under Section 11B. The appellants had ample time to file the claim within the limitation period. The departmental authorities were more than helpful when they endorsed in the RT 12 to the effect that the appellants had paid excess amount and that they could claim the excess duty paid by filing a refund claim for the purpose. Despite this, it is not understandable why the appellants allowed the limitation under Section 11B of the Act to run out. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 136 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... a facie applicable to the facts of the present case, we modify our earlier order and grant total stay of recovery of the duty in terms of the impugned order and with the consent of the parties we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 5. emsp Appeal. We observe that the issue as mentioned above will have to be considered in the light of the decision cited by the learned Counsel which prima facie shows that there can be more than one class of wholesale dealers for different regions based on accepted commercial criteria. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the Tribunal judgment cited supra after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. We direct the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order as the matter is likely to have recurring effect.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 135 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Re-export of car

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rities about the appellant rsquo s eligibility to retain the car beyond the period of six months which had expired and even after knowing that the period of extension was sought, the authorities did not direct the appellant to surrender the car to the authorities nor he was told to re-export it immediately. The appellant, therefore, it appears bona fidely felt that he could continue to use the car though this was done against the law. In this background, therefore, we hold that the absolute confiscation of the car was not warranted and this is a fit case for where the plea for re-export of the car on redemption has to be allowed. We, therefore, while upholding the order of confiscation, allow the car to be re-exported on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees twenty five thousand). The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that the authorities are free to realise any duty due under the law taking into consideration the option for re-export given by us.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 134 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
  

  Modvat - Inputs - Requirements

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... were not appliances/apparatus/equipment. The appeals by Revenue against the Tribunal decision in Ceat Tyres Ltd. and in another similar case of Modi Rubber Ltd. had been dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court as briefly reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. A157. The fact that the curing bags and bladers dealt with in the aforesaid cases were capable of and were in fact used in a number of operations for curing the tyres in the Mould did not come in the way of the decision that they are eligible inputs for the purposes of grant of Modvat. The present case of Lead Ingots which are not apparatus or appliances etc. themselves and which are used for being coated on the raw rubber hose pipe will not be one of the excluded type of materials like apparatus, appliance, etc. In view of this position, the order in appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta is correct in law and deserves to be upheld. I hold accordingly and dismiss the appeal filed by the Collector.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e-deposit of the amounts of penalty imposed on the concerned applicants and post the appeals for hearing on 31-8-1995 and 1-9-1995. During the pendency of the appeals the recovery of the amounts in question shall stand stayed. As the amounts involved are high and as these appeals arise from a common order and the goods in question are lying uncleared for re-export in terms of the impugned order, incurring demurrage and container detention charges. We post the appeals for hearing on out of turn basis. Both sides indicated that they would be ready to argue the case at short notice. The appeals are posted for hearing on 31-8-1995 and 1-9-1995.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 132 - CEGAT, MADRAS
  

  Remand - Allegation of clandestine production and removals

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... idence on record and the pleas urged before us we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons stated above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue we set aside the same in the appeal filed by the Department and remand the matter to the original authority for reconsideration of the issue afresh in accordance with law, after affording the respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. emsp Since in the appeal filed by the Department the matter is remanded for the reasons stated above, the penalty levied on the respondent is also stands set aside inasmuch as the matter is remanded for reconsideration of the issue afresh and therefore the appeal filed by the respondent namely M/s. Devi Rubber Products also stands disposed of in the above terms. In the result the appeal filed by the Department and the appeal filed by the respondent are disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 1995 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lso observe that in case it is finally decided that the value of the bought out items is to be included in the value of the Drilling Rigs manufactured by the applicants, the applicants will be entitled to set-off of duty/modvat credit of the duty paid on the bought out items. Looking to the circumstances and the facts of the case, in totality we hold that pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty and penalty will create undue hardship to the applicants. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, the submissions made before us and the case law cited, we dispense with pre-deposit of duty and penalty on the condition that the applicants deposit Rs. 25.00 lakhs within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On compliance of this order, recovery of the balance amount of duty and penalty shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Compliance should be reported to the Registry on or before 24th July, 1995. The stay applications are disposed of accordingly.

  ---

123456........ 9