|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 317 Records
-
1991 (7) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund consequent to Appellate Order ... ... ... ... ..... rtment files an appeal and obtains stay, I think, the Department has got a duty to consider the application of the petitioner for refund and recalculate the demand of duty as against the petitioner in pursuance of the order of CEGAT dated 20-09-1990. In view of this, a direction shall issue to the respondents to re-calculate the demand of duty as against the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the CEGAT dated 20-09-1990 and to grant refund of excise duty, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner has claimed interest at 18 on the duty which is to be refunded to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and the provision for in terest in other revenue enactments, I am of the view that interest at 18 has to be given to the petitioner on the amount to be refunded to the petitioner from the date of collec tion till the date of actual payment. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation - Duty paid under protest - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ef of refund should be denied on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The submission is devoid of any merit. Duty was paid under protest and the petitioner is entitled to refund in view of the order passed by the appellate authority. The effect of the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be denied by resort to doctrine of unjust enrichment. Apart from this consideration, Shri Desai did not file any affidavit to establish that the petitioner did pass the burden of duty to the customers. In these circumstances the doctrine of unjust enrichment, even if available, is not attracted. 8. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside and respondents are directed to grant refund claimed by six refund applications after verification within a period of four weeks from today. In default, the Department shall refund the amount with interest at the rate of 15 per annum from today till the date of payment. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioner.
-
1991 (7) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Motor - Evidence - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... he goods as the meaning of the words in Tariff Item is extremely clear. In our judgment, the complaint made by Shri Hidayatullah that the revisional authority was not right in ignoring the affidavits filed is misconceived and is required to be turned down. It is now well settled that in cases of classification where two views are possible, it is not permissible to disturb the view taken by the authorities while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, in our judgment, the only view possible is that the items manufactured by the Company are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 30 as done by the Company for over several years. Even assuming that the other view is possible, we decline to exercise our writ jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the three authorities below. In our judgment, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the petition must fail. 6. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Duty paid under protest - Valuation - Post-manufacturing expenses - Bonus to dealers - Interest and bank charges on drafts
-
1991 (7) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ jurisdiction - Payment and recovery of duty under mistake of law - Manufacture - Phenolic moulding powder
-
1991 (7) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Words and Phrases - Expression "Duty of Customs" - Scope - Exemption - Customs (Valuation) ... ... ... ... ..... ree to urge, in the event that appeals from the orders of CEGAT upholding the validity of the loading of landing charges were not allowed by the Supreme Court, that only the charges actually paid to the Port Trust can be so loaded and not the arbitrary figure of 0.75 of the c.i.f. value. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. As regards the payment of duty on the exemption claimed in respect of additional duty and auxiliary duty, the petitioners are permitted to pay the amounts due and payable under the interim orders of this court dated 5th November, 1982, 9th March, 1984, 27th April, 1984 and 29th June, 1984, inclusive of interest where so ordered, on or before 31st December, 1991. We record the undertaking of the petitioners, given on their behalf by their counsel to court that the petitioners shall keep alive the bank guarantees furnished by them in this behalf until payment as aforesaid has been made. 7. Prothonotary to act on the minutes.
-
1991 (7) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Appellate Tribunal's Order - Refund - Duty paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... is not possible to permit the respondents to raise such a contention especially when the question involves determination of facts which have not been pleaded in the written statement. 8. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the excise duty paid by the petitioner in respect of the products which were grouped under Item 26AA(ia). This refund shall be made to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. If this refund is not made within the above-said period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the entire amount from 1978-79 till the date of its actual payment. The interest shall be paid by the officer responsible for delaying the payment. The petitioner is also held entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 5000/-. In the circumstances of the case, I am, however, not inclined to award the interest as claimed by the petitioner.
-
1991 (7) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Prosecution - Sentence ... ... ... ... ..... s that where an accused person has on conviction been sentenced to imprisonment for a term (not being imprisonment in default of payment of fine) the period of detention, if any, undergone by him during the investigation, inquiry or trial of the same case and before the date of such conviction, shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on him on such conviction, and the liability of such person to the remainder, if any, of the term of imprisonment imposed on him. As the revision petitioners were arrested on 5-5-1984 and as admittedly they were under deten tion during 19-6-1984 to 19-6-1985 during which period the investigation of the customs case was going on, the plea of the revision petitioners that they are entitled to set off during the aforesaid period cannot be rejected. 6. It is hereby held that the revision petitioners are entitled to set-off for the period 19-6-1984 to 19-6-1985. With the above observation the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... committed an offence punishable under Sections 193,196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. As we are directing prosecution against petitioner No. 2, it is not necessary to take any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The papers and proceedings of Writ Petition No. 2116 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 3357 of 1990 along with companion Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1991 and Writ Petition No. 3358 of 1990 to be kept under seal by the Prothonotary and Senior Master and to be produced in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate as and when necessary. We wish to add that in the companion Writ Petition No. 3358 of 1990, petitioner No. 2 had made identical false declaration in respect of other bills of entries for seeking refund. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed while lodging the complaint to include the false declaration in the companion petition also for filing charges against petitioner No. 2. Companion Writ Petition No. 2117 of 1991 is also summarily dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Additional Customs (Countervailing) Duty ... ... ... ... ..... 5) E.L.T. 849 (Union of India and Others v. Modi Rubber Limited and Others). The Supreme Court was examining the ambit of the expression duty of excise referred to in two notifications issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(a) of Central Excise Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982. The Supreme Court held that at the time of issuance of the notification, there was no special duty of excise leviable and consequently, the exemption notification could not have intended to grant exemption from payment of special excise duty. We are unable to appreciate how the decision of the Supreme Court can support the claim of Shri Hidayatullah. In our judgment, there is no infirmity whatsoever in levy of countervailing duty and the additional duty of excise under Section 3(1) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the petition must fail. 6. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... e Assistant Collector for re-consideration but we fail to appreciate why such course should be adopted, nor Shri Desai could give a convincing answer. The matters are not remitted back to the Assistant Collector for fresh consideration only because the Department so desires. In our judgment, there is no occasion whatsoever to grant such request. 10. Accordingly, petition succeeds and it is declared that 30 revised price lists filed by the Company on January 7, 1984 before the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division II, Thane, ought to have been approved after allowing deductions on account of additional tax on sales tax, maintenance charges and site service charges as claimed by the Company. The order of Assistant Collector is set aside and Assistant Collector is directed to take consequential steps to give effect to this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners to stand discharged.
-
1991 (7) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation - Packing charges - Price list showing price "ex-works" - Interest on credit to customers - Cost of ageing
-
1991 (7) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Exemption - (Customs) - Special order ... ... ... ... ..... issued by special order in each case upon the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do and it is obligatory that the circumstances of an exceptional nature should be stated in the order. 11. Mr. Rana submitted that, in the circumstances, we should mould the relief, by which is meant that we should strike down the said notification under Section 25(2). To strike it down would adversely affect the MMTC. The MMTC is not a party to the appeals. We cannot pass an order which would adversely affect the MMTC without hearing it. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In Appeal Nos. 1003 of 1987,1015 of 1987 and 1016 of 1987 the Appellants have furnished bank guarantees and, pending the disposal of the appeals, there were orders restraining the Respondents from enforcing the same. Upon the application of Counsel, these interim orders shall remain in operation for a period of four weeks from today.
-
1991 (7) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Brass scrap - Additional Duty of Customs ... ... ... ... ..... o the respondents not to levy any additional duty or surcharge under the Tariff Act. 2. Shri Singhania, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that the challenge to the levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act cannot survive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Anrs. v. Union of India and Ors. . Before the Supreme Court the challenge was to the levy and collection of additional duty of customs in respect of import of brass scrap. The Supreme Court turned down the challenge. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs. The respondents are at liberty to enforce the bank guarantees and the personal bonds furnished by the petitioners at the time of passing of the interim order for clearance of imported goods.
-
1991 (7) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Asphalt Mix - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... t is permissible for the subsequent Collector to sit in appeal over the order passed by his predecessor. Apart from this consideration, we are unable to accede to the conclusion that the process of preparation of asphalt mix amounts to manufacture as contemplated by Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. We have set out the process undertaken by the petitioners and we are not prepared to uphold the view of the Collector that the Company is manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff. In our judgment, the impugned order is entirely erroneous and is required to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order dated December 17, 1983 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-II and copy of which is annexed as Ex. F to the petition is quashed. The petitioners are not liable to pay excise duty in respect of process of preparation of asphalt mix. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Penalty - Customs - Short-landing of goods ... ... ... ... ..... that the tally sheets establishes that the containers landed with seals intact. Merely because the seals were rusted and the seal numbers were not visible is not enough to warrant a conclusion that the containers did not land with seals intact. 5. Shri Gomes also submitted that the destuffing tally sheets indicate that the full contents of the containers, that is 12 pallets from the two containers and 11 pallets from one container were destuffed. Shri Gomes submitted that merely because some of the pallets were lost in the Bombay Port Trust Docks area the penalty cannot be levied upon the petitioners by assuming that the seals were not intact. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. In our judgment, the order passed by respondent No. 1 on September 6, 1988 and confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Valuation (Customs) - Octanol ... ... ... ... ..... available right from 1987 onwards. Secondly, the circular cannot determine the ambit of the expression and clarificatory circular is obviously issued to overcome the judgment of the Single Judge of this Court, which was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench. In our judgment, the respondents cannot resist the grant of relief in regard to refund of countervailing duty to the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, petition partly succeeds and the only relief which the petitioners are entitled to is refund of countervailing duty. The respondents are directed to verify the claim for refund and grant refund within a period of four weeks from today. It is open for the respondents to load customs duty while determining the assessable value for levy and collection of additional duty. The respondents are at liberty to enforce the bank guarantee furnished by petitioners in pursuance of interim order, for realisation of duty which could not be recovered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Manufacture - Backing of aluminium foil with printed paper ... ... ... ... ..... dgment, the Department was clearly in error in recovering duty from the Company and consequently, the Company is entitled to the relief. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and show cause notice dated August 25, 1988, copy of which is annexed as Ex. K and which covers the period prior to March 1, 1988 is quashed. The Company is entitled to refund of duty paid under mistake for the period commencing from three years prior to February 1983 and ending with Feb. 28, 1988. The respondents are directed to verify the amount of refund payable to the Company for the said duration within a period of eight weeks from the date the Company produces all the requisite documents. The respondents, on verification, shall refund the amount within a period of two weeks from the date of completion of verification. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to coats. The Bank guarantees and bonds furnished in pursuance of interim order dated October 12, 1983 to stand cancelled.
-
1991 (7) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Copper cylinders used in textile industry but not engraved - Ineligible for exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ed copper rollers or engraved copper cylinders which are used in textile industry. The use of the word or between rollers and cylinders cannot be read as to lead to the conclusion that cylinders of all types are exempted from payment of excise duty. Construction suggested by Shri Ganguli would do violence to the plain understanding of the entry as it would lead to the conclusion that engraved copper rollers, even if not used in the textile industry, are entitled to exemption. In our judgment, the authorities below have correctly held that the exemption is available provided rollers or cylinders are made from copper and are engraved and are used in textile industry. As the cylinders manufactured by the petitioners are copper cylinders and used in textile industry but not engraved, exemption under the Notification is not available. The decision of the authorities below does not suffer from any infirmity and the petition must fail. 4. Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs.
-
1991 (7) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Subversion of judicial process - Subversion of - Contempt of Court ... ... ... ... ..... re can be no doubt whatever about the complicity of one or more members of this court s staff in this happening. We direct the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master to forthwith investigate so that the member or members of the staff involved may be identified and proceeded against. He shall make a report as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, before 21st August, 1991. We direct the Advocate Mr. Kantawala and his staff to render assistance to the Additional Prothonotary and Senior Master in this behalf. 16. It should not be understood, by reason of the fact that we are not taking action against Mr. Kantawala by this order, that we are exonerating him. We are not. We shall consider whether action should be taken against Mr. Kantawala and what that action should be after we have considered the Additional Prothonotary s report. Order on the appeal accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. The Prothonotary and Additional Prothonotary shall act on the minutes.
....
|
