Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... interference of this Court is called for. If the petitioner feels that the Tribunal has already delivered a judgment in his favour and that judgment is not being implemented or executed properly by the respondents, it is for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for such orders and directions as the Tribunal feels appropriate to bind the respondents for implementing and enforcing its judgment. Without doing that petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. 3. Let xerox certified copy of this order be given to the ld. Advocates for the parties as expeditiously as possible.
-
1997 (3) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
... ... ... ... ..... eposited by the petitioners with the Port Authorities within a period of 2 weeks from the date of intimation of the amount so calculated. The balance two-thirds of such amount so calculated shall be paid by the Customs Authorities to the Port Authorities also within a period of 2 weeks from the date of intimation. On the amount being paid to the Port Authorities in terms of the aforesaid direction, the goods in question shall be released within one week thereafter. 7.The petitioners shall also furnish an undertaking to the effect that if ultimately they fail in the writ application, they shall be liable to pay the Duty which would be paid by the Customs Authorities pursuant to this direction. 8.Let this matter appear in the Hearing List in due course. 9.The oral prayer of the learned Advocate for the Customs Authorities for stay of operation of this order is rejected. 10.All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking.
-
1997 (3) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... of the supervening legal provisions enacted by Central Act 40 of 1991 and the declaration of law made by the Supreme Court in the latest pronouncement referred to supra. 5. Consequently, we answer the questions referred for our consideration in the following manner so far as question No. 1 is concerned, we are of the view that the claim for refund has to satisfy Section 11B as amended by Central Act 40 of 1991 and as per the declaration of law made by the Apex Court in the decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. s case 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (supra). The Tribunal shall also consider the question once over again in the light of the latest enactment and declaration of law. So far as the second question referred to us is concerned, we are of the view that there is no automatic entitlement to refund arising out of the order of the Board passed in respect of Calcutta Units situated outside the Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Show cause notice - Contempt of Court ... ... ... ... ..... illegal. In our opinion, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and the various provisions and the Notifications brought to our notice, the respondents have made out a clear case for further investigation and adjudication in the matter. It is solely on this ground that we do not find it necessary to entertain these petitions and grant the prayers of the petitioners. 16.In the result, all the petitions fail and rule is discharged in all the petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. We direct that the adjudicating proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. After hearing both the sides we further direct that unless the proper authorities commence any prosecution of any of the petitioners before us and unless they obtain appropriate orders from competent Court in that behalf on or before 30th April, 1997, the respondents- authorities shall return the passport to respective petitioners. Issuance of certified copy of this judgment is expedited.
-
1997 (3) TMI 113 - SC ORDER
Plastic scrap ... ... ... ... ..... t 15A(i) or 15A(ii) in the Schedule to the Act. This view was taken in Paresh Products, Jamnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 438. Against this order of the CEGAT, the Revenue had preferred appeals in various cases. All these appeals were dismissed by this Court on September 9, 1991. Therefore, the present group of appeals brought by the Revenue must also meet the same fate. We, therefore, dismiss them, but make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 112 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ranting relief under that head is concerned, the matter will have to go back to the Assistant Collector, who will determine the issue after allowing the appellant to place on record such material in support thereof as is in their power, possession and custody. The appeal will stand allowed to that limited extent only with no order as to costs. 2. C.A. No. 1954/86 The issue arising in this case for determination is answered by this Court in the decision - Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 173. The learned Counsel for the appellant states that the matter is covered against the appellant by the said decision and, therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, but make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Manufacture - Removal of goods - Writ jurisdiction - Alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of S. 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of S. 23 of the Act, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion of the High Court under S. 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. (emphasis added) 11.For all these reasons I do not find any sustainable grounds to grant the relief sought for and hence the Original Petitions are dismissed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADHYA PRADESH
Stay application ... ... ... ... ..... contended that the appeal is barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner however, disputes this position and contended that the Appeal is within limitation. 4. Be that as it may, the appeal and the application for stay including question of limitation have to be decided. In that view of the matter, and in view of the order passed in connected case (W.P. No. 278 of 97), it is directed that Respondent No. 2 shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible. It shall also decide the application for interim relief as early as possible preferably within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the Order passed by this Court today along with copy of Writ Petition and its Annexures. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he be given liberty to approach this Court if the matter is not heard as directed hereinabove, within the stipulated period. The liberty as prayed for is granted. 6. With this observation and the direction the petition is disposed of.
-
1997 (3) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT M.P. IN JABALPUR
Writ Jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... d Salt Act, 1944. Therefore, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal and that has not been filed by him. Therefore, so far as the order of the CEGAT dated 5-2-1991 is concerned, it cannot be gone into. 6.Now coming to the question of Notifications Nos. 124/87 and 36/87 as being ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, we have also gone through both these Notifications and we are of the opinion that nothing substantial has been brought to show that they suffer from vice or discrimination. The Notifications lay down certain modes in which concession has to be given and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise has found that the incumbent is not entitled to that benefit and accordingly the same has been denied to him. We do not find that both these Notifications suffer from any vice or discrimination so as to declare them ultra vires. 7.There is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1997 (3) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Investigation and Enquiry - Evasion of duty ... ... ... ... ..... the same is being claimed on the allegations of alleged physical torture of Nasir Khan and Shaheed Ali, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in writ petition No. 1 of 1997. On this point, there are affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that we should not enter into objective examination thereof and of the attendant circumstances. So, we cannot even prima facie hold whether there is any substance in the allegations made against the respondents to bring about any compelling and justifiable reason for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned that earlier Rakesh Bagla had appeared before the investigating officer on two days and he does not complain of any maltreatment then. 34.In view of the above discussion, we do not find any cause for interference in the investigation being conducted by the respondents. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... except where the question involves determination of the question in relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, the application may not be maintainable, but where none of these questions are involved, the assessee has a right to make an application for reference to the High Court under the aforesaid Section. The contention of the petitioners is that the goods have been manufactured prior to 1-3-1994 and the tax was not leviable on such goods. Respondent No. 1 has taken the view that notwithstanding the date of manufacture of the goods, the tax is liable to be paid on the goods manufactured by the petitioners to be sold after the said date. Respondent No. 1 has categorically recorded this finding - We hold that duty shall be payable on the goods manufactured prior to 1-3-1994 but cleared on or after 1-3-1994. 7. In view of the above discussion the petitioner has alternative remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT
Writ Jurisdiction - Adjudication - Seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... bjection raised before the High Court in respect of the said statements as may be admissible in law. 2. Mr. Subba Rao, learned counsel has drawn our attention to an observation made by this Court in Poolpandi v. Supdt. of Central Excise and Ors. 1992 (60) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) 1992 (3) SCR 247 wherein it has been observed by this Court that if during the litigation, orders of stay have been passed from time to time and the matters have remained pending for no fault on the part of the concerned departments of the Union of India, the entire period for which the cases have remained pending either in this Court or in the High Courts shall be excluded while computing the period under Section 110 of the Customs Act and the other relevant provisions. It is not necessary for this Court to make any observation because it will be open to the parties to cite the said decision if in the facts and circumstances of the case, such decision is applicable. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
1997 (3) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT
Scientific and technical instruments ... ... ... ... ..... hat the Unit is a part and parcel of the appellants cannot be disputed nor has it been disputed. It is merely a Unit within the establishment of the appellant and is funded by the appellant. We enquired of the learned counsel for the appellants if the said Unit has an independent existence and all that the learned counsel could point out was that the Research and Development unit had been included in the list of institutions approved for the grant of exemption from customs duty on import of scientific/technical equipment and apparatus. This inclusion by the communication of November 29, 1966 cannot come to the rescue of the appellants because the import is not by the Research and Development Unit, but is by the Indian Telephone Industries, which is a commercial establishment. It is, therefore, difficult for us to say that the tribunal was in error in the view that it took. 5. We, therefore, do not see any merit in these appeals and dismiss them but make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... ms to us that the Tribunal s view that the duty is chargeable at the rate and price when the commodity is cleared at the factory gate and not on the price reduced at a subsequent date is unexceptionable. Besides as rightly observed by the Tribunal the subsequent fluctuation in the prices of the commodity can have no relevance whatsoever so far as the liability to pay excise duty is concerned. That being so, even if we assume that the roll back in the price of tyres manufactured by the appellant-company was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself, without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it is shown that there was some agreement in this behalf with the Government and the latter had agreed to refund the excise duty to the extent of the reduced price. That being so, we see no merit in this appeal brought by the assessee and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 103 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant has not violated any term of the notification No. 27/89-C.E., dated 1-3-1989?
Held that:- Under this notification pyrolysis gasolene which falls under Chapter 27 is produced in the appellant's factory and it is utilised for the manufacture of goods. As such it would be exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon assuming that any duty of excise is leviable on it. Therefore, we fail to see how any duty of excise can be levied on any part of pyrolysis gasolene manufactured in the factory of the appellant.
Pyrolysis gasolene being an intermediate product which is produced in the factory of the appellant, and it being utilised for the manufacture of other goods, it would be totally exempt from payment of excise duty under the second exemption notification. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The appellant is not liable to pay any duty of excise on pyrolysis gasolene. The impugned order of Tribunal is, therefore, set aside.
-
1997 (3) TMI 102 - SUPREME COURT
Modification of the classification lists - Held that:- This Court has construed the judgment of the High Court dated November 24, 1984 to mean that both the Judges have held that the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated March 5, 1984 modifying the classification lists was bad in law and had ordered that the same be quashed. In these circumstances, the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that the said order dated March 5, 1984 had not been quashed by the High Court and that the Collector did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant company against those orders. In our opinion, the Collector (Appeals) should have proceeded on the basis that the order dated March 5, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector modifying the classification lists had been quashed by the High Court. By dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant company against the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise dated March 5, 1984 modifying the classification lists the Collector (Appeals) has affirmed the modification of the classification lists with effect from the date the appellant company manufactured such yarn i.e. from July 1983 onwards, which is contrary to the earlier decision of the High Court in M.P. No. 104/84 which has been affirmed by this Court in Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex (1988 (5) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order dated May 27, 1985 passed by the Collector (Appeals) dismissing the appeal is set aside and it is held that the order dated March 5, 1984 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise modifying the classification lists stands quashed
-
1997 (3) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the goods in question fall within Entry 3005.90 or they fall within the scope of Entry 90.18 within the meaning of the respective terms "others" and instruments and appliances used in surgical sciences?
Whether the appellants are entitled to exemption under Notifications Nos. 339/86-C.E., dated 11th June, 1986 and 69/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993 respectively?
Held that:- The intention of the authorities was to grant exemption to certain life saving and sight saving articles manufactured in the country and once this intention is clear from the subsequent Notifications issued under Section 5A of the Act in 1995, we do not see any reason why we should take a narrow view to confine the two items produced by the appellants to Entry 3005.90 rather than place them in the wider connotation of surgical appliances in Entry 90.18 of Chapter 90.
In this view of the matter we allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the authorities below and hold that the appellants were entitled to exemption from the whole of the duty payable on the said two items. In this view of the matter, the stay granted earlier is made absolute
-
1997 (3) TMI 100 - SC ORDER
Valuation (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... rther including the same for the purpose of determining the excise duty. The finding is that the duty has been paid on the assessable value of the concentrate which is inclusive of the amount spent on advertisement and sale promotion and, therefore, no further duty is payable by the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any reason to depart from this view. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal but make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT
Polyester Chips (Textile grade) ... ... ... ... ..... tries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.). In a large number of such cases this Court has passed format orders as stated in Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors. v. Anam Electrical Manufacture Co. Etc. - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) 1997 (1) Scale 716. 3. We, therefore, remit these matters to the Assistant Commissioner, Commissioner of Customs for applying the decision of this Court in the case of Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) and considering the question of refund as per the format order reported in 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) 1997 (1) Scale 716. The Registry will draw up the orders in terms of the format order while remitting the matter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs will also determine the duty liability in terms of the decision in Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India. We order accordingly. 4. Both the appeals will stand so disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 98 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Central Excise) - Refund of trade discount - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... er will be paid the difference amount. This is a case of adjustment and is not hit by the words (such discount not being refundable on any account whatsoever) in Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 7. It is also clear from the policy that this discount is known at the time of the purchase by the dealer and is found to be a well-accepted normal practice in the trade in these goods. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Anil B. Divan, the learned senior advocate for the appellant that in case any refund is made in accordance with the above note by the dealer, the same shall be added back to the assessable value of the goods and duty will be paid thereon. This statement is recorded. 9. It is accordingly held that the turnover discount is an admissible deduction. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part and the matters remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for appropriate orders in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in this judgment. No costs.
............
|