|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Rebate of Central Excise Duty - Yarn captively consumed in manufacture of fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... Act, the application shall be considered as having been filed within limitation and shall be decided on merits. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible. (iii) Within ten days after the amount is paid by the petitioner mill company, necessary documents pertaining to the export rebate claim shall be forwarded by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3. (iv) Bank guarantee filed by the petitioners shall be returned to the petitioners by the department within ten days from the payment of the amount of excise duty of rupees six lacs ten thousand seven hundred fifty one and paise sixty eight. 5. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Permission granted. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
-
1991 (3) TMI 158 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - Limitation - Tax collected without authority of law - Refund claim time-barred ... ... ... ... ..... his view of the matter, in our view, there is no substance in the submission of the learned advocates for the petitioners that even if the remedy of filing an application for refund under sub-section (4) of Section 11B is barred or remedy of having recourse to Civil Court is barred under sub-section (5), yet this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 32. In the result, there is no substance in the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the petitioners. Hence these petitions are rejected. 33. With regard to the rest of the matters where additional questions are involved, those matters will be notified separately. 34. It is clarified that Special Civil Applications Nos. 3704/88, 3705/88, 3706/88, 5930/90 and 5931/90, which are at the admission stage, are rejected. Rule issued in Special Civil Applications Nos. 3509/83, 1611/86. 708/87, 1868/87, 3772/87. 349/88, 350/88, 7823/88 and 4810/89 is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 157 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... nd 8. Today we are told by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that the said applications are still pending. Accordingly, so far as the Items No. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 are concerned, the detention of goods for recovery of the duty in question, is premature, and not fair. Accordingly the order of detention dated 22nd February, 1991 is quashed herewith and the writ petition is allowed with the above observations. 5. It is made clear that this order does not preclude the authorities from proceeding to recover the duty due under the Items No. 5 and 6 after 17th March, 1991, if it is not paid meanwhile or to recover the other amounts in case the stay applications are dismissed. 6. We may not be understood as having expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 18th February, 1991 made by the Appellate Authority in the stay applications relating to Items No. 5 and 6. 7. Copy of this order may be given to the parties on payment of usual charges within five days.
-
1991 (3) TMI 156 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Exemption to goods produced in factories belonging to State Government ... ... ... ... ..... are nothing but act of manufacture. In the absence of any decision on this question, we do not consider it proper to decide it at the first instance as it involves consideratron of factual controversy for which the parties have taken before us divergent stand. Unless it is determined that the Board is manufacturing any item, the excise duty cannot be imposed. 7. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. Orders dated 5-9-1983, 24-11-1983 (Annexure V and XIII to the writ petition) are quashed. The respondents are directed to decide afresh the question as to whether fabrication and galvanizing carried on by the Board in its fabrication unit amount to manufacture so as to attract the liability of the Board to pay excise duty after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Board as far as possible within three months. Orders so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Confiscation of conveyance - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... 1 week from date. The respondents will permit the petitioners to have inspection of the seized goods within 14-3-1991. (3) The petitioners are to give their answer to the Show Cause Notice by 25-3-1991. (4) The concerned authority will hear and dispose of the matter within a period of 2 weeks thereafter i.e., by 8th April 1991. In default of the petitioners answering the Show Cause Notice or if they do not participate in the adjudication proceedings, the concerned authority will be at liberty to proceed ex parte. If the order of adjudication as far as the said vehicle is concerned is against the petitioners, the respondents will be at liberty to enforce the bond. This order disposes of the writ petition. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been used by the respondents, it is recorded that the allegations contained in the petition are not admitted. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (3) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Import - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Import control and assessment ... ... ... ... ..... cause notice to be correct), the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act do not and cannot have any application inasmuch as mens rea is an essential ingredient for an offence contemplated under Section 111 of the Act. The show cause notice, therefore, does not even prima facie disclose the offence or violation alleged. The show cause notice is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 34. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed the show cause notice and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed. The respondents are directed to allow clearance of the subject goods upon assessment by the respondents and upon payment of duty on the basis that the same are spares which are allowed and as levied in the other cases mentioned in the judgment. Such assessment and release of the goods shall be effected within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the operative part of the judgment and order. 35. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... l the encashment. If the petitioner is successful, the Bank Guarantee will stand discharged and the Customs Authorities will pay interest at 18 per annum on the guaranteed amount from the date of furnishing of the Bank Guarantee till discharge together with all Bank charges for furnishing and maintaining the Bank Guarantee to the petitioner. Alternatively, the petitioner will have the liberty to pay the entire difference between the admitted duty and the duty as assessed to the Customs Authorities and the Customs Authorities will refund the sum together with interest at 18 per annum if the writ petitioner is ultimately successful in the appeal. 18.This order disposes of the writ petition. As no affidavit in opposition has been used, it is recorded that the allegations contained in the writ petition are not admitted by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this Judgment and order on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (3) TMI 152 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Import Policy - Spares - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... eated as a single unit. In this context, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate violation in this case. The value of the goods imported was within the prescribed limit of the licence. The items were meant for use in the process of manufacture of the applicant. These seals were required to ensure safety in production of explosives, a highly combustible product. Each item was meant to replace an identical part. In our view, therefore, on these facts no penalty or fine ought to have been imposed. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer question Nos. 1 to 4 in the affirmative. 18. In view of our finding that the import was valid and in accordance with law, it was not necessary for us to decide question Nos. 5 and 6. However, since the contentions have been raised and we have dealt with the contentions, for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we answer the fifth and sixth questions in the negative. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. -I agree.
-
1991 (3) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... uld be levied and collected on the weight of the unsized yarn at the spindle stage and not on the basis of the weight of the sized yarn. 3. As far as the show cause notice is concerned, it is required to be quashed and set aside on the short ground that it is barred by the prescribed period of limitation. 4. As far as the prayer for declaration about the collection of duty on the weight of the unsized yarn at the spindle stage is concerned, it is stated at the bar that the said question is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1988 SC 191 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 (SC). Since the department has also accepted this position, the petitioners do not press this prayer. 5. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The show cause notice dated May 24, 1983, Annexure C to the petition, is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Show Cause Notice - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... n cannot also be sustained. 12. The impugned order of confiscation is quashed. Any action taken on the basis of the impugned order of confiscation is also set aside. I direct the respondent authorities to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in order to establish whether the petitioner is the owner of the said goods. If the concerned authority is satisfied after hearing the petitioner that the said goods belong to the petitioner, the respondent authorities will hand over the said goods to the petitioner or its clearing agents for reshipment to the petitioner at Singapore. Subject to such formalities as may be prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962. As the order of confiscation was passed even though the Customs Authorities had knowledge of the rights of the petitioner as owner of the goods, I think that this is a proper case in which the Customs Authorities should pay the costs of the application to the petitioner. The Rule is therefore made absolute with costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so . If the aforesaid principles are applied, in our view, the delay ought to have been condoned. 3. In the result, the order Annexure B dated June 26, 1990, passed by the CEGAT, Bombay, rejecting the application for condonation of delay is quashed and set aside. CEGAT, Bombay is directed to consider the appeal as having been filed within time and if the appeal is otherwise in order the same shall be decided on merits. 4. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 148 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... g the appeal so far. 5. The appeal now filed by the appellant is clearly time barred under Section 35 of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The appeal is accordingly rejected . It is obvious that the appellate authority has not read the order properly and has committed an error in reading the same. When this Court directed that the appeal should be decided within eight weeks, this Court meant that the appeal shall be decided on merits and not on the ground of limitation. On this short ground alone the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) produced at Annexure C to the petition is required to be quashed and set aside and the petition is required to be allowed. 2. In the result, the order at Annexure C dated January 1, 1980, passed by Collector-Appeals, is quashed and set aside. The Collector (Appeals) is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law without raising the plea of limitation. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - Interest for delayed refund - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... ude on the part of the Government with regard to payment of refund claim cannot be countenanced. Therefore, in our opinion, the respondents should be saddled with exemplary costs. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/-. 13. In the result, since the petitioner has received an amount of Rs. 53,468.55 ps. no order as regards the payment of principle amount is passed. As regards the claim of interest is concerned, the same is also rejected. However, in the facts of the case, the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) as and by way of cost to the petitioner. It is directed that the amount of cost shall be paid to the petitioner latest by June 15, 1991. If the amount is not paid by June 15, 1991, it shall carry interest at the rate of 15 from June 15, 1991 onwards till the date of actual payment. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
-
1991 (3) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction - Detention of excisable goods for recovery of excise dues ... ... ... ... ..... days of the filing of the said representation in accordance with law and communicate a copy of his order to the petitioners. Thereupon it shall be open to the petitioners to avail such remedies are open to them under law. 6. Shri Santanam learned counsel for the petitioners submits lastly that the above direction should be given to the Collector, Central Excise and not to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise because according to him, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is acting on the direction of the Collector of Central Excise. We cannot do so, for the simple reason that the order of detention is passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and it is not brought to our notice that the Collector of Central Excise has ever decided or directed that the detained goods belong to L.M.L. Fibres Ltd. and not to Prakati Synthetics Ltd. nor he has decided the other contentions raised herein. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. No costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Customs - Additional duty of customs and auxiliary duty of customs - Words and phrases - 'Retrospective', meaning of
-
1991 (3) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Durability - Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Cl. (6) read with Cl. (11) but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner. 31. Consequently, the writ petitions are partly allowed and it is held and declared that soap-stone is included in the word talc , it is covered under Exemption Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955 and it is exempted from payment of excise duty, if it is employed either as extender, suspending agent, filler or diluent. 32. Central Excise duty paid by the petitioners will be refunded with interest 12 per annum from the date of payment to the date of refund, if it is held by the competent authority that soapstone was employed in any one of the aforesaid manners. 33. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 143 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Refund - Limitation - Departmental authorities bound by provisions of the statute ... ... ... ... ..... e petitioner has suffered injury on account of the payment of excise duty made due to mistake. If such injury is not suffered by the petitioner, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim restitution. The claim of restitution cannot be based merely on the ground that there is payment under mistake of law. Even after the mistake of law is established, it needs to be shown by the petitioner that on account of such mistake, he has suffered injury. If, in the facts of the case it is found that on account of such mistake, someone else has suffered injury, the petitioner cannot claim restitution. In the instant case there is no averment as to the fact that the petitioner has suffered injury on account of the mistake and that if restitution is not granted there would be injustice to the petitioner. Therefore on this ground also, the petitioner has no case. There is no substance in the petition. 8. In the result the petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. Rule discharged.
-
1991 (3) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Patent or proprietary medicines ... ... ... ... ..... directed to recognise the petitioners as loan licensees in respect of the goods manufactured by them at the factory premises of one another, provided of course, all other conditions as regards the loan licensees are fulfilled by them. In view of the absence of material on record, the prayer with regard to grant of exemption in respect of the first clearance made upto the aggregate value not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs (or Rs. 10 lakhs) by petitioner No. 1 (Aarex Laboratories) from the factory of petitioner No. 2 (Gujarat Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Works) is rejected. However, it is clarified that if the petitioner approaches before the appropriate officer of the department and claims exemption under Notification No. 80/80, dated June 19, 1980 by placing relevant material on record, the appropriate officer of the excise department may consider the same in accordance with law and on merits. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
-
1991 (3) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... equired to be remanded to the Collector of Central Excise to proceed further in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated March 16,1974, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, Annexure H to the petition, confirmed by the Gold Control Administrator on Gold Control Appeal by order dated July 25,1977 (Ann. I to the petition) and the order passed by the Government of India dated September 15,1980, produced at Annexure J to the petition, are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. (It is stated at the bar that the powers of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, are now transferred to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad and hence the matter is remanded to the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad). The Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, shall proceed further with the matter in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 140 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Seizure - Diamonds - Re-assay ... ... ... ... ..... to be a prosecutor by directing the collection of fresh evidence. Though the comparison may not be justified because the adjudicating authority is only a quasi-judicial authority and it cannot be said that he acts as a prosecutor by directing the re-assay of the goods. For the reasons already given by me that on the facts and circumstances of the case, namely that evidence has been completely adduced in the case in answer to the show cause notice and on the basis of the opinion of the Expert already given, it would be improper to permit the second respondent to have a re-assay of the goods. I once again repeat that my conclusion is based on the fact that evidence has already been let in and the petitioner will be prejudiced, if the charge itself is amended by giving a different opinion on the subject goods. In this view of the matter, the impugned letter dated 30-1-1990 is vitiated. It is accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
............
|
