|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 288 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Credit of money ... ... ... ... ..... which was the subject matter in Dhamendra Trading Company s case. The decision of the Supreme Court upholding the view of the High Court in those cases, shall apply to this case also. 16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and I direct issue of a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioner to utilise the accumulated credit claimed in Annexure-C subject to verification as to the correctness of the amount. 17. Sri Chander Kumar wants this Court to make a mention about the Notification 45/89 which was issued on 11-10-1989 and to say that the benefits available to the petitioners under the said notification would be in addition to the benefits earned by him under earlier Notification 27/87. Since the Notification 27/87 is restored by the subsequent Notification 45/89 whatever benefit is restored to manufacturers of vegetable products under that notification would be in addition to the accumulated credit that is already earned up to the date it was rescinded
-
1990 (10) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay - Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... nal disposal immediately after service of notice. Mr. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appears for the respondent and submits that there is one other judgment of the Tribunal which is in favour of the department. But I have to reckon with the fact that the Tribunal s Judgment relied on by the petitioner has been approved by the Supreme Court of India Civil Appeal 140/89, dated 12-3-1990. Whatever (140/89) that may be, having regard to the facts of the case, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned Advocate General that the direction of pre-deposit Rs. 20 lakhs needs modification. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner may deposit a total sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as pre-deposit and on such deposit, the first respondent shall take up the appeals and hear them on merits and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ jurisdiction - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... the petitioners should, in the facts and circumstances, be permitted to furnish bank guarantee or guarantees in that behalf. We are inclined to accept this request. 5. In the result, the following order is passed - (a) The petitions fail and the same are dismissed. (b) In the event, however, the adjudication order goes against the petitioners and if occasion arises for filing appeal therefrom, the appellants instead of depositing the adjudicated amount, will be at liberty to furnish in favour of the Collector of Central Excise, bank guarantee or guarantees of a nationalised bank of amount equivalent to the amount of duty (excluding penalty, if any) together with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the due date till actual payment. The bank guarantee or guarantees, as the case may be, shall be kept alive and operating till the hearing and final disposal of the proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act and for a period of sixty days thereafter.
-
1990 (10) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - Alcoholic preparations — Concentrate of Gin/Whisky — Customs — Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... roposition economically. Besides there may be risk of their breaking in the course of re-shipping. Having regard to the above discussion we are inclined to hold that the wooden caskets in which the imported goods are contained qualify for exemption from duty under the above Notification No. 184/76. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. Rule in each of the petitions is made absolute. Bank Guarantees and I.T.C. Bonds furnished in pursuance of interim orders are to be discharged forthwith. In Writ Petition No. 119 of 1988 the disputed amount of duty as also additional duty as well as duty on containers has been already paid. In view of this judgment, the same to be refunded to the petitioners forthwith. No order as to costs. On the application of Mr. Bulchandani for the respondents, the operation of the order in so far as it relates to the discharge of Bank guarantee as well as I.T.C. Bonds and refund of duties already paid, stayed for a period of six weeks from to-day.
-
1990 (10) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Sentence ... ... ... ... ..... the instant cast. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the above order appears to me to be just and proper. 14. In the result, the rule is made partly absolute. The conviction and sentence of the Petitioner under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside. The conviction of the Petitioner under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 is confirmed. However, the sentence of one month s rigorous imprisonment as also the fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which a further sentence of one month s rigorous imprisonment is set aside. In its place, I sentence the Petitioner to one day s simple imprisonment and enhance the fine to Rs. 3,000/- in default of payment of which the Petitioner shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In the event of the Petitioner having already paid the fine imposed on him, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- therefrom shall be retained and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the Petitioner,
-
1990 (10) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... urged that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution are to be sparingly exercised. Authorities in support have been also brought to my notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court delivered by Puranik, J. in Criminal Writ Petition No. 335 of 1986 - S.S. Marathe v. G.G. Kamble and Ors. The point urged on behalf of the State has been dealt with and following the same and other authority cited in support I hold that in this particular case it would be surely abuse of process of the court to allow the prosecution to continue as against petitioner-accused No. 5 for the offence alleged to have been committed by the company in the year 1979 and after the adjudication proceedings in the year 1985 exonerated him and when in particular he has ceased to be the director of the company in the year 1981 December 11. It has got to be therefore struck down and quashed. Hence Rule made absolute.
-
1990 (10) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Classification list once accepted ... ... ... ... ..... by the respondent, he cannot direct the petitioners to file revised classification lists in the absence of proceedings initiated for cancellation of the earlier sanction granted for the classification lists. In view of the same, the impugned orders are quashed. However, it is open to the respondent or any other higher authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the order of acceptance of the classification lists filed by the petitioners. In such proceedings, the petitioners will be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward their contentions. 3. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly.
-
1990 (10) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... 82, the respondents ought to have at once moved this Court to get suitable orders by pointing out, what they have now argued. Further, having claimed that alternative remedy existing, they cannot plead that the appeals which they may file are barred by limitation. 13. Hence when respondents had failed to do what they ought to have done in 1982 or 1983 and because of it, this Court having kept the writ petitions pending for seven years, a direction is issued to the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing appeals by treating the periods involved as constitution as done in good faith. 14. Therefore, if the appellants present their appeals against the impugned orders to the Appellate authority within four weeks from the date of issue of order copy the Appellate authority is directed to entertain them and, thereafter dispose them of on merits within three months from the date of presentation of the appeals. 15. With the above directions, the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Penalty - Show cause notice - Adequacy of service on the appellant ... ... ... ... ..... e or misleading information given by the Company. Indeed, Rule 198 does not require that the person furnishing false information shall be an employee it is enough, if he furnishes false/misleading information with the necessary intent. Whether the petitioner is really responsible for furnishing such false/misleading information, whether he did so knowingly or willfully, and what is the extent of his liability, if any, in that behalf are all matters, which have to be gone into by the Collector in the proceedings yet to be taken. We cannot make any pronouncement on the said aspects. 11. It is a matter of regret that on preliminary objections, the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice have been held up for more than three years. The proceedings shall now go on according to law without any avoidable delay. That is in the interest of the petitioner as well as in the interest of all concerned. 12. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of Alternate Remedy - Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... r any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty. Duty of excise is a tax on manufacture and not a tax on the profits made by a dealer. When the factory price is ascertainable, the excise duty has to be levied on that price. If the assessee transported the goods from its factory to the Depot, cost of transportation has to be excluded, as has been held in Bombay Tyres case (supra) and in Indian Oxygen Ltd. s case (supra). The depot service charges and unloading charges have nothing to do with the manufacture and therefore, that amount is not to be included to ascertain the assessable value for the purpose of payment of Central Excise duty. 22. In view of the two judgments of the Supreme Court, which have been referred above, we are of the view that the contention of the Revenue has to be rejected. 23. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed, the order dated 10-2-1989 is quashed. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aluminium Nickel powder - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... different view. The contention of Shri Talyarkhan that ingots are merely crushed into powder form and, therefore, the process is not one of manufacture cannot be accepted. It is undoubtedly true that the authorities below were not right in relying upon Brussels Tariff Nomenclature for holding that the expression ingots and powder are distinct and different but independently of the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, in our judgment, the conclusion of the three authorities below is correct and deserves to be upheld. It is now well settled that if the view taken by the Authorities is a plausible one, then the High Court is not entitled to take a different view in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The reliance by Shri Desai on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Godbole and Another v. Jagannath Fakirchand reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1399 in this regard is very appropriate. 9. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation (Central Excise) - Refund claim — Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ections were issued to pass the order. It is obvious that the refund applications were kept pending without any reason whatsoever and therefore we are inclined to direct payment of interest at the rate of 9 per annum on the amount covered by the refund applications and which would be payable from the date of lodgment of each of the refund application till February 16, 1983, when the Assistant Collector passed the order. We are not inclined to grant interest beyond February 16, 1983 because the petition remained pending in this Court for no fault of the Department, but we would direct the Department to pay the amount of refund along with interest at the rate of 15 per annum in case the Department fails to refund the amount on or before December 31, 1990. The interest at the rate of 15 per annum would be payable from today till the date of refund, provided the amount is not refunded before December 31, 1990. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation — Related person — Brand name — Words & Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... ciated with the assessee that they have interest, directly or indirectly in the business of each other. It is impossible to suggest that the petitioners have interest directly or indirectly in the business of M/s. Peico Electronics or vice versa. The issue has been considered exhaustively by the Supreme Court and it is obvious that the order of the Assistant Collector cannot be sustained. 3. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector on August 28, 1982 is set aside and it is declared that the assessable value shall be determined with reference to the price at which the two band portable transistor radio sets were sold by the petitioners to M/s. Peico Electronics Limited. The Assistant Collector is directed to approve the price lists and the classification lists as filed by the petitioners. There will be no order as to costs. The bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order to stand discharged.
-
1990 (10) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Valuation — Goods partly sold from depots and partly from the factory ... ... ... ... ..... also along with the earlier set which is being disposed of by a separate order and therefore, it is not necessary to mention the arguments in detail in this order. 6. While allowing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in the year 1989, we have observed that the Depot Service Charges and unloading charges can not be included towards assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty when the price at the factory gate was ascertainable. Therefore, we have quashed the show cause notices issued by the respondent No. 3. 7. In the present set of writ petitions also, the facts are absolutely identical and similar. 8. For the reasons given in our order dated 11-10-1990 passed in Writ Petition No. 1849/1989 and seven other writ petitions, we hereby allow these writ petitions, quash the notice dated 9-8-1989 (Ahnexure-1) as also the order dated 8-5-1990 (Anx. 6) passed in pursuance of the notice, during the pendency of the writ petitions. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the goods exported by the appellants are liable to export duty?
Held that:- We are not convinced that the goods exported by the assessee have ceased to be groundnuts in the ordinary acceptation of the term or that they have become a different commodity, say, a processed food (indeed, there is no such classification in the tariff entry). No difficulty, anomaly or absurdity arising out of the computation of export duty in terms of tonnes on these goods was brought to the notice of the authorities at any stage.
Once it is realised both oil seeds and roasted groundnuts exported by the assessee are capable of being described as `groundnut kernel', which is what the entry talks of, the various circumstances pointed out - that they have different markets, that their end use is different, that one of them has been excepted from the export ban, that their export is done under the auspices of different Export Promotion Councils - all fall into place and reveal no inconsistency with, and have no bearing on, the interpretation to be placed on the entry. Appeal dismissed & the stand of the Revenue has to be upheld
-
1990 (10) TMI 73 - SC ORDER
Determination Of Value Of Estate, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... h effect from 1985. The amount of tax or duty involved in this appeal is very negligible. The matter also relates to the estate of a person who passed away in 1962. Having regard to the fact that the provisions are not likely to come up for consideration hereafter, we do not think that this appeal under article 136 of the Constitution need be proceeded with. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. We, however, express no opinion on the question which has been raised before and decided by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (10) TMI 72 - SC ORDER
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rahim Sahigra Dhoraji v. CWT 1981 129 ITR 314 (SC) wherein the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court was also approved. In this view, the appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 71 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... g the accounting year till June 4, 1965 and, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the assessee-firm is entitled to the benefit of registration till that date. The firm had also applied for registration of the reconstituted firm. That application, however, happened to be in Form No. 11A instead of Form No. 12. It is under these circumstances that the Tribunal has directed the assessee to file an application in the proper form with further direction to the Income-tax Officer for effecting registration for the accounting, period. Since there was already an application for registration, though not in the proper form, the direction for registration given by the Tribunal is perfectly legal. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the court will be forwarded to the Tribunal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 70 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... etermined under section 35 of the Act. Section 34 provides for aggregation for the purpose of fixing the rate and that section has nothing to do with the value of the estate on which the levy is to be imposed. This legal position is clear from the following decisions Smt. Komanduri Seshamma v. Appellate CED 1973 88 ITR 82 (AP), Maharani Rai Laxmi Kumari Devi v. CED 1980 121 ITR 1002 (All), CED v. N. Ramachandra Bhat 1980 123 ITR 841 (Kar), CED v. K. Nataraja 1979 119 ITR 769 (Kar), CED v. P. K. Agarwalla 1988 169 ITR 699 (Patna), CED v. Murarilal Sovasaria 1989 175 ITR 417 (Gauhati), CED v. Smt. M. Nalini Rao 1990 183 ITR 523 (Kar), R. C. Vaish v. CED 1989 180 ITR 283 (All) and T. R. Jayasankar v. Asst. CED 1972 83 ITR 445 (Ker). We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative that is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the court will be forwarded to the Tribunal.
-
1990 (10) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Scientific Research Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ee cannot now claim depreciation in respect of capital assets used for scientific research relating to the business of the assessee in respect of which a deduction has been allowed under section 35. These cases merely interpret the law as amended. They do not deal with the question at issue before us and, therefore, we fail to see how they further the case of the Department in any way. In the premises, the amendment to section 35(2)(iv) of the Incometax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, in so far as it is made retrospective, violates articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is, accordingly, declared invalid in so far as it is retrospective in operation. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c). In view of the above, the question in Income-tax Reference No. 343 of 1975 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
....
|
