|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 354 Records
-
1991 (2) TMI 136 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sugar - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... e has been denied to the petitioner. The view taken by the respondents is contrary to the decisions of this Court reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 205 and 1987 (32) E.L.T. 373. The same view has been taken by the Punjab and Haryana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. The view is that base year is a unit by itself and cannot be split up into sub-periods. All that one has to see is what was the production during the base year and what is the production during the year in question and if there is excess production, the petitioner can claim rebate. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to take action in accordance with the principles enunciated in the aforesaid two judgments of this Court and determine the rebate. If on such redetermination, after notice to the petitioner, any amount is found due from the petitioner, the same can be collected from him. 5. The demand notice, impugned herein, shall not be given effect to pending such redetermination.
-
1991 (2) TMI 135 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Adjudication - Re-adjudication on remand ... ... ... ... ..... hority, impugned herein, is not in accordance with the directions given in the appellate order. The impugned order of the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority is accordingly quashed. 9. The petitioner s counsel says that there is no further material to be placed by him before the Authority. In such a situation the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority is directed to dispose of the matter within six weeks from today. He shall fix a date of hearing on which date he shall hear the petitioner or his counsel if they appear and dispose of the matter. The petitioner will be present on that date. In any event, he will not ask for adjournment. 10. A certified copy of this order shall be produced before the Assistant Collector/Appropriate Authority by the petitioner within ten days from today. 11. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. No costs. 12. Certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within five days.
-
1991 (2) TMI 134 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Demand raised on basis of withdrawal of exemption but neither date nor copy of such order furnished
-
1991 (2) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Textured dyed waste or textured waste - Stage of payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... t in view of Circular No. 16/90-CX1, dated 23-5-1990, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Govt. of India, which is followed by Trade Notice No. 64/90, dated 15-6-1990, issued by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Indore, stand of the petitioners has been accepted by Government and duty held payable at the finished and marketable stage and not at the take-up stage. It was also submitted that the petitioners product does not come within the exceptions set out in clarification in Para 2 of the Trade Notice. Shri Kohli further submitted that in view of this Trade Notice each of Annexure-A, to the petitions aforesaid, including one of penalty in M.P. No. 535/90, would deserve to be quashed. Shri B.G. Neema, representing the Union of India also agreed with the submissions of Shri Kohli. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order/notices filed as Annexure-A to the petitions, are hereby quashed and these petitions stand allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Demurrage and ground rent - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... anuary 28, 1991, has asked the Container Corporation not to release the goods although they had issued delivery order earlier to the importer. The importer shall get the delivery order revalidated. The demurrage charges prior to the date February 27, 1988, will be borne by the importer on which date the Bill of Entries were submitted by the petitioner and after February 27, 1988, till the goods are released, the Customs Department would be liable for the payment of demurrage charges and ground rent charges to the Container Corporation. 7. We, therefore, direct the Container Corporation of India/respondent No. 5 Manager, Inland Container Depot to release the goods to the petitioner on submission of revalidated delivery order and on payment of the demurrage charges and the ground rent charges for the period prior to February 27, 1988. The goods would be released within four days from the date of the fulfilment of the above two conditions by the petitioner. C.M. is disposed of.
-
1991 (2) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... rned counsel for the respondents submits that this is a case where the petitioner has unilaterally changed the classification from Tariff Heading No. 86.07 to 73.25 and that this will amount to fraud, as observed by the first respondent. Therefore, he insists that the order of the Tribunal should be sustained. 4. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is in error in not considering the Financial aspect of the petitioner before directing the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Tribunal has also agreed that the petitioner has an arguable case in the appeal. Therefore, I am inclined to modify the order of the Tribunal as follows The Petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within 8 (eight) weeks from today. The rest of the amount shall stand waived till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. This writ petition is ordered in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 130 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYD.
Credit of money ... ... ... ... ..... otification 27/1987 dated 1-3-1987 the right of the petitioner to utilise the credit which was accumulated to its account for having purchased minor oils and having used in the production of Vanaspati has not been effected. The petitioner is entitled to use it in the manner indicated in the notification. We, accordingly, issue the same direction as was issued by the Gujarat High Court. 10. In the result the writ petition is allowed and a writ mandamus shall issue directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to utilise the credit of money earned by them as a result of purchase of duty paid notified goods before the Notification dated 25-8-1989 which remained accumulated to the credit of the writ petitioners. It is clarified that these benefits will be available to the petitioners in addition to the benefits which have again been made available to them under Notification Nos. 45/89 and 46/89 dated 11-10-1989. The petitioners to bear their own costs in these proceedings.
-
1991 (2) TMI 129 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Power - Exemption to goods when manufactured without the aid of power ... ... ... ... ..... claimed exemption under Notification No. 94/70 dated May 1, 1970 wherein it is inter alia provided that metal containers falling under Item No. 46 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is exempted from excise duty provided in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power. In the instant case it is an admitted position that in the process of printing and lacquering M/s. Gujarat Metal Box, Ahmedabad used power. Even the administrative officer of the petitioner company Shri J.N. Oza, whose statement was recorded by an excise officer, admitted that he knew that M/s. Gujarat Metal Box, Ahmedabad was using power while printing tin sheets. In view of this factual position, the impugned order cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. No other contention is raised. 18. In the result the petition is rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated.
-
1991 (2) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Exemption - Interpretation of Statute - Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of alternative remedy - Words and Phrases
-
1991 (2) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Life saving equipments - Infusion sets - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... o reply to the letters of the petitioners would not by itself lead to a conclusion that the action of the Customs Authorities in refusing the release of the said goods without payment of duty is bad. In the case of Raymond Woollen Mills (supra) a clarification had been asked for by the writ petitioner from the respondent authorities, whether a licence was needed or not. The respondent authorities did not reply. It was in that perspective that the learned Judge held that it would be inequitable to allow the respondent authorities to institute a criminal case against the writ petitioner for not having a proper licence/written authority. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in this case. 28. For all these reasons I am unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioners. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 29. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (2) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Classification of goods without Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... e held that there is no order of quantification passed against the appellants. It is for the authorities concerned to issue the requisite show cause to the appellants if there is a warrant for the same and if that event happens, it is for the appellants to express their stand and if they are to face any adverse proceedings, liberty is theirs to seek the due process of law, as stated above. Hence, the dismissal by the learned Single Judge of the Writ Petitions questioning the order dated 26-6-1990 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs will have to stand subject to the above. Accordingly, W.A. Nos. 59 and 60 of 1991 are dismissed, subject to what all we have observed above with reference to the steps if any to be taken by the authorities. W.A. Nos. 58 and 61 of 1991 are allowed, quashing the communication of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras, dated 26-11-1990, challenged in W.P. Nos. 19379 and 19672 of 1990 and those Writ Petitions will stand allowed. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Contempt of Court - Refund of customs duty ... ... ... ... ..... Court and is, therefore, required to be committed and suitably punished. 6. Accordingly, Shri R.P. Trehan, Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Department) is found guilty of committing contempt of this Court. We direct that he should be detained in civil prison for a period of one week and we also impose a fine of Rs. 500/-. The Sheriff to act upon the order. Motion is disposed of accordingly. Thursday, the 28th February, 1991. Shri J.F. Pochkhanawala with Shri H.R. Shetty, for the petitioner in support. Shri C.J. Shah with Shri K.C. Sidhwa, for the respondents to show cause. 7. Today, at 2.45 p.m. affidavit of Shri T.R. Kapoor, Assistant Collector, sworn on February 28, 1991 is filed seeking stay of the order for a period of one week on the ground that Special Leave Petition is filed against the judgment and it is likely to be posted for admission on March 4, 1991 before the Supreme Court. In view of the affidavit, operation of the Judgment is stayed till March 12, 1991.
-
1991 (2) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ jurisdiction vis-a-vis Alternative remedy - Chlorine ... ... ... ... ..... e cannot be categorised as goods and does not fall under the purview of Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly, we confirm the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. 10. In such circumstances, if the Court is to drive the party to an alternative remedy after nearly 2 frac12 years after the admission of the writ petitions, it will, in my opinion, amount to shirking our responsibility to do justice. One cannot be blind to hard facts. There is no need to repeat, that each case has to be weighed on its own merits. There can be no hard and fast rule to the application of the principle of alternative remedy. 11. I have, therefore, no hesitation in quashing the impugned orders of the second respondent and first respondent in W.P. Nos. 8647 and 12177 of 1988 respectively and show cause notice of the respondent in W.P. Nos. 13838 of 1988. The writ petitions are allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 123 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Modvat Credit Scheme - Constitutionality - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Interpretation of statute - Modvat Scheme
-
1991 (2) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of prior deposit ... ... ... ... ..... assets is only Rs. 1,09,299/-. It is rather difficult for me to surmise whether these documents were taken note of by the Tribunal before directing payment of the amount as a condition for taking the appeal on file. One cannot blame the Tribunal because the counsel did not make a plea on the basis of financial hardship and the Tribunal says that there was no supporting evidence. Whatever that may be, inasmuch as the documents have been produced before me and the merits of the case relate to a plea of limitation, one need not be very harsh on the petitioners while exercising the discretionary powers under S. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly, in modification of the order of the Tribunal, I direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- within twelve weeks from today. In other respects, the amounts demanded shall stand waived till the disposal of the appeal. The writ petition is ordered in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Exemption Notification (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... it on sale to the public, there is no effective public notice in the Official Gazette. 11. In that case the learned Judge was dealing with a situation whether an item of export was banned by public notice. The learned Judge found that until the public notice was made publicly known, the ban could not be enforced. 12. I see no reason for differing with the reasoning of the learned Judge in that case and I hold that the effective date of the said notification must be taken to the 18th February, 1987, i.e. when the Official Gazette was first made available to the public. The Bill of Entry was submitted on 17th February 1987. There is no reason why the petitioner should be visited with payment of duty under the notification which become effective only from the next date. 13. Accordingly the writ application is allowed. The Rule Nisi issued is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. 14. There will be stay of operation of this judgment and order for one week from date.
-
1991 (2) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Penalty - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... alue, I direct the Customs Authorities to release the consignment in question upon the petitioner furnishing a P.D. Bond for 100 of the CIF value of the 1209K ball bearings. It may be noted that there is, in any event, no justification for the Customs Authorities to detain the other goods forming part of the consignment in respect of which there was no dispute. The same will be released unconditionally and forthwith. 14. The concerned respondent will be at liberty to reconsider the matter upon notice to the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise all points taken in this petition before the authorities. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been used, it is recorded that the allegations contained in the petition are not admitted. 15. This application is disposed of accordingly. 16. There will be no order as to costs. 17. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.
-
1991 (2) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Import - Duty Exemption Scheme - Advance Licence - Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... n. The grant of an import licence does not also confer any immunity, exemption or relaxation at any time from an obligation or compliance with any requirements to which the licence holder may be subject to under other laws or regulations. This would apply also to materials allotted directly by the canalising agencies under the policy, as also to the imports made under the Open General Licence, with or without an actual user condition attached thereto. Therefore, compliance with other laws is required on the part of the appellants. Hence, it is impossible to contend that the Customs authorities cannot take action. 23. For the reasons stated above, we conclude that no writ of prohibition could be issued. The appellants are bound to comply with the conditions of the Notification No. 116 of 1988 dated 30th March, 1988 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act which in turn attracts Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Grinder - Domestic electrical appliance - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... ce which we have answered in the negative already. 15. For all the above reasons, we are not persuaded in any manner to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Single Judge and we find no justification to take a view contra. The plea of the appellants, therefore, merits only rejection, at our hands. 16. The plea raised on behalf of the appellants regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions has been rightly repelled by the learned Single Judge and we are not convinced of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants on this aspect either. In the light of our conclusions as above, we consider it unnecessary to go into the question based on the legality or otherwise of the competency of the authorities to change their view and whether there are sufficient grounds for such a change in the circumstances of the case. The writ appeals, therefore, fail and shall stand but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... hstanding the existence of an order levying duty, already passed by the authorities. We, therefore, reject the above said contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government. 11. It is, however, to be noted that the period covered by the aforesaid notification is 25-11-1978 to 22-10-1982, whereas the period covered by the demand in question is 23-10-1977 to 22-10-1982. It is clear that the notification does not cover the period from 23-10-1977 to 24-11-1978. We, accordingly, clarify that it is open to the respondents to issue a revised demand to the petitioners in respect of duty payable for the goods in question, for the period from 23-10-1977 to 24-11-1978. So far as the excise duty for the period from 25-11-1978 to 22-10-1982 is concerned, we hereby direct the respondents not to enforce the demand for the duty leviable, and levied, for that period. 12. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
............
|
