Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 187 Records

• 1992 (12) TMI 200
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of sales tax liability on medicines sold to registered dealers as per notification dated December 30, 1964 under section 5A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the tax liability on medicines sold by a dealer to registered dealers, as per a notification issued by the Chief Commissioner on December 30, 1964. The Tribunal held that the sales were liable to tax at the first point of sale, even when sold to manufacturers. The primary issue was the correct interpretation of section 5A of the Act in conjunction with the notification. The dealer contended that the benefit of deduction should not be denied, as the sales did not constitute a series of sales by successive dealers. The opposing argument emphasized the wording of the notification, stating that it made the first sale in Delhi taxable, regardless of section 5(2) provisions.
  
  The Court analyzed the purpose and effect of section 5A, which enables the Chief Commissioner to specify the point of taxation in a series of sales by successive dealers. The Court drew parallels with similar provisions in the U.P. Sales Tax Act and emphasized that section 5A applies only when there is a plurality of sales of a commodity. It was clarified that the notification should not be narrowly construed to impose tax where there is no series of sales. Section 5A was deemed to prevent multiple taxation on the same item and ensure a single imposition of tax.
  
  Furthermore, the Court highlighted that section 5A should not be applied to levy tax that is otherwise not chargeable under the Act. It was noted that the sale of goods to a registered dealer for resale constitutes a series of sales by successive dealers, triggering tax liability at the first sale. However, in this case, the goods sold were used in manufacturing by the purchasers, altering their character and not subjecting them to resale. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the dealer, stating that the sales did not qualify as a series of sales in Delhi, and the tax liability under the notification did not apply.
  
  In conclusion, the Court answered the reframed question in the negative, favoring the dealer. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting tax provisions in a manner that aligns with the legislative intent to prevent multiple taxation and ensure clarity in the imposition of sales tax.
  
  Judgment Outcome:
  The Court ruled in favor of the dealer, stating that the sales of medicines to registered dealers did not constitute a series of sales in Delhi, and therefore, the tax liability under the notification dated December 30, 1964, did not apply. The Court emphasized the need to interpret tax provisions in a manner consistent with the legislative intent to prevent multiple taxation and ensure a single point of tax imposition.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 199
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether excise duty paid by the petitioner in respect of goods transferred outside the State of Kerala formed part of the purchase turnover liable to tax u/s 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Inclusion of Excise Duty in Purchase Turnover

  The core question is whether excise duty paid by the petitioner for goods transferred outside Kerala forms part of the purchase turnover liable to tax u/s 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee, an oil company, contended that excise duty paid directly to the government should not form part of the purchase price paid to IOC. However, the Tribunal held that excise duty paid by the assessee is in discharge of the liability of the manufacturer, Cochin Refineries Limited (CRL), and thus includible in the purchase turnover.

  The Court examined the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules, highlighting that excise duty is a duty on the production or manufacture of goods. The Tribunal found that the bond executed binds the assessee to pay excise duty, which is primarily the liability of the manufacturer. The Supreme Court's decisions in cases like McDowell & Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 277 and Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 43 STC 13 were cited, emphasizing that excise duty forms part of the consideration for the sale of goods and is includible in the turnover of the manufacturer, even if paid by the purchaser.

  The Court concluded that excise duty paid by the petitioner was in discharge of the liability of CRL and, therefore, it forms part of the purchase turnover for the purpose of section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The decision in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 37 was overruled, and the tax revision cases were dismissed.

  Conclusion:

  The excise duty paid by the petitioner is part of the purchase turnover liable to tax u/s 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, as it discharges the liability of the manufacturer, CRL.

  Petitions dismissed.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 198
  
  Issues:
  1. Maintainability of the special criminal application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
  2. Rejection of revision application and maintainability of a second revision application.
  3. Rejection of request for stay of further proceedings.
  4. Applicability of judgment regarding staying civil and criminal proceedings under section 391(6) of the Companies Act.
  5. Interpretation of the judgment in Divya Vasundhara Financiers Pvt. Ltd. case.
  6. Duty of the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of cases by Judicial Magistrates.
  7. Discharge of the application and direction to trial court to proceed with the case.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner filed a special criminal application seeking to quash the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Case No. 1327 of 1989. The court noted that the petition, though not explicitly stated, could only be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court held that since the revision application was rejected, a second revision application was not maintainable under Section 399(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making the impugned order final. Therefore, the special criminal application was deemed not maintainable in the eye of the law.
  
  2. The court further observed that the request for stay of further proceedings, rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, was an interlocutory order. As per Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, no revision application would lie against such an order. Hence, the court concluded that the petition was required to be dismissed on this ground as well.
  
  3. The petitioner relied on a judgment regarding staying civil and criminal proceedings under section 391(6) of the Companies Act. However, the court clarified that the judgment was not applicable in the present case as it dealt with directors, whereas the petitioner was a manager. The court emphasized that the judgment did not mandate a stay of proceedings in all cases falling under section 391(6) and highlighted the preference for expeditious disposal of criminal cases.
  
  4. Additionally, the court highlighted the duty of the High Court to ensure expeditious and proper disposal of cases by Judicial Magistrates, as per Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had rejected the petitioner's contentions, providing no basis for the High Court to entertain the application on its merits.
  
  5. Consequently, the court rejected the application, discharged the rule, vacated the interim relief, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case promptly. The court also denied the request for extending interim relief, emphasizing the importance of expediting the case, especially considering the victim's circumstances.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 197
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the prosecutions launched are barred by limitation.
  2. Whether the petitioner (accused No. 4) is an "officer in default" under section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956, given that no show-cause notice had been served upon him.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Barred by Limitation
  
  The period of limitation for taking cognizance of a complaint is provided under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The limitation period varies based on the quantum of the sentence for the offences:
  - Six months if the offence is punishable with fine only.
  - One year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
  - Three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
  
  The infractions of sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, are punishable under sub-sections (6) and (5) of section 58A, respectively, with imprisonment which may extend to five years. Therefore, there is no bar of limitation for taking cognizance of complaints involving those offences, and the complaint in C.C. No. 1292 of 1983 is not beyond the period of limitation.
  
  However, the violation of rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is punishable under rule 11 with a fine which may extend to Rs. 500. For such an offence, the period of limitation prescribed is six months. The complaint, taken cognizance of on December 13, 1983, for violations during the years ending March 31, 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982, is beyond the six-month period and is thus barred by limitation.
  
  The contention that such a violation is a continuing offence was examined. A continuing offence is one that involves a failure to comply with a rule, where the liability continues until compliance is achieved. However, the legislative intention in rule 3A does not indicate that the infraction is a continuing offence. Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the six-month period from the dates of the alleged violations.
  
  Issue 2: Officer in Default
  
  Sub-section (30) of section 2 of the Companies Act defines "officer" inclusively, and section 5 defines "officer who is in default" as any officer who is knowingly guilty of the default, non-compliance, failure, refusal, or contravention, or who knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits such default.
  
  The combined effect of these sections is that not all directors can be construed as "officers in default" unless each director meets the criteria of section 5.
  
  The petitioner (accused No. 4) contended that he cannot be considered an "officer in default" as no show-cause notice had been served upon him. The complaint revealed that notices were issued to the company and all its directors, but it was silent on the date of service. Upon reviewing the file, it was found that the notice sent to the petitioner was returned as "not found," indicating no proper service of notice on him.
  
  The effect of non-service of notice before prosecution was considered in the case of Thomas (V.M.) v. Registrar of Companies, where the Kerala High Court held that without proper service of notice, a director cannot be said to have knowingly and wilfully authorized or permitted the default. This view was supported by the Madras High Court in Assistant Registrar of Companies v. Southern Machinery Works Ltd., which stated that if no reply is received after notice is served, it must be held that the officer knowingly committed the default.
  
  Given that no proper service of notice was made on the petitioner, he cannot be construed as an "officer in default" under section 5 of the Act.
  
  Conclusion
  
  For the above reasons, the prosecutions against the petitioner (accused No. 4) are quashed. The proceedings in C.C. Nos. 1291 and 1292 of 1983, on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O. No. 1), Egmore, Madras, against the petitioner shall stand quashed.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 196
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 294(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956.
  2. Validity of the appointment of the plaintiff as the sole selling agent.
  3. Force majeure clause as a defense.
  4. Quantum of damages and counter-claims.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Suit under Section 294(2A) of the Companies Act, 1956:
  The plaintiff argued that Section 294(1) and (2A) of the Companies Act, when read together, do not bar the maintainability of the suit. The court noted that Section 294(1) prohibits the appointment of a sole selling agent for more than five years without the company's general meeting's approval. Section 294(2A) states that if the general meeting disapproves the appointment, it ceases to be valid from the date of the meeting. The court observed that the defendant did not dispute the de facto transaction of business with the foreign buyers through the plaintiff. However, the appointment was not placed before the company's general meeting, making it void ab initio. The court concluded that the agreement was void from the beginning, thus barring any claims based on it.
  
  2. Validity of the Appointment of the Plaintiff as the Sole Selling Agent:
  The court examined the plaintiff's claim of being appointed as the sole selling agent and found that the appointment was not placed before the general meeting held on September 9, 1968. The court noted that the agreement did not mention that it was subject to the approval of the general meeting, as required by Section 294(2A). Therefore, the appointment was void ab initio. The court also discussed the principle that courts will not enforce an illegal agreement, but exceptions exist, such as when the parties are not in pari delicto (not equally at fault). The court highlighted Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act, which deal with the consequences of rescinding a voidable contract and the obligation to restore benefits received under a void agreement.
  
  3. Force Majeure Clause as a Defense:
  The defendant argued that it could not fulfill its obligations due to circumstances beyond its control and relied on the force majeure clause in the agreement. The court noted that the defendant consistently claimed that reasons beyond its control prevented it from performing the contract. The court found that the force majeure clause was a complete answer to the suit claim, as the plaintiff admitted that the same situation continued even after the extended deadlines. However, the court criticized the learned single judge for accepting the defendant's claim without sufficient consideration of the principles of law and evidence.
  
  4. Quantum of Damages and Counter-Claims:
  The learned single judge found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of Rs. 30,403.82 for the unexecuted portion of the goods and Rs. 2,915.32 as commission for the shipment already made, totaling Rs. 33,319.14. The judge also addressed the defendant's counter-claim, stating that the plaintiff must tender an account for 2,589 sterling pounds but was not liable to pay any damages. The court noted that damages for breach of contract and compensation under Sections 64 and 65 of the Contract Act create different obligations and require different evidence. Therefore, the court decided to remand the case for a fresh hearing, reframing the issues and allowing the parties to adduce additional evidence if necessary.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the case was remitted to the trial court for rehearing in accordance with the law, after reframing the issues in light of the court's observations. There was no order as to costs, and the court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was to be refunded in accordance with the law.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 195
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Request for convening a meeting under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  2. Objections by the secured creditor, Syndicate Bank.
  3. Examination of the proposed scheme's bona fides, feasibility, and interest to creditors.
  4. Legal principles governing the court's discretion under Section 391.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Request for Convening a Meeting under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956:
  The application was filed by a shareholder and managing director under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking a scheme of arrangement/compromise for the respondent company, which was under liquidation. The applicant requested the court to direct the convening of meetings of unsecured creditors and equity shareholders to consider and approve the proposed scheme of arrangement.
  
  2. Objections by the Secured Creditor, Syndicate Bank:
  Syndicate Bank, the only secured creditor, opposed the application, arguing that the scheme was designed to delay the liquidation proceedings. The bank highlighted that the company owed more than Rs. 5 crores and that the proposed scheme offered only Rs. 1.5 crores in full settlement, which was less than one-third of the dues. The bank also pointed out that the scheme did not provide details on how the funds would be mobilized and argued that calling a meeting would be a waste of time and resources.
  
  3. Examination of the Proposed Scheme's Bona Fides, Feasibility, and Interest to Creditors:
  The court examined whether the scheme was bona fide, genuine, or feasible and in the interest of the creditors. The court noted that the scheme proposed to pay the secured creditor Rs. 1.5 crores and other dues in staggered payments over several years. However, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated how the funds would be raised to meet these obligations. The court also observed that the applicant had failed to secure financial assistance from Indian Bank or any other institution and had not refuted the allegations made by Syndicate Bank.
  
  4. Legal Principles Governing the Court's Discretion under Section 391:
  The court emphasized that under Section 391(1) of the Act and Rule 69 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, it is not mandatory for the court to convene a meeting unless it is satisfied that the case merits such action. The court referenced the Madras High Court's decision in N. A. P. Alagiri Raja and Co. v. N. Guruswamy, which stated that the court must be satisfied that the compromise or arrangement is genuine, bona fide, and in the interest of creditors and the company.
  
  The court concluded that the applicant's contention that the court is bound to issue directions to convene the meeting was unsustainable. The court found that the proposed scheme was neither bona fide nor reasonable and appeared to be an attempt to delay the liquidation proceedings. The court noted that the scheme lacked clarity on fund mobilization and was not supported by the major secured creditor, Syndicate Bank. Therefore, the court held that directing the convening of a meeting would be futile.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed scheme was not genuine, bona fide, or feasible and was not in the interest of the creditors. The court also noted that the scheme was vague and appeared to be intended to delay the winding-up proceedings. The application was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 194
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of provisions related to court-fees in company petitions involving multiple creditors
  - Conflict of opinions regarding payment of separate court-fees by each creditor in a joint company petition
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment dealt with a company petition under sections 433(e) and (f) of the Companies Act, 1956, where all petitioners were creditors of the respondent company, alleging its inability to pay debts and commercial insolvency. The office raised an objection regarding court-fee payment, suggesting that separate court-fees should be paid by each creditor in a joint petition. This issue arose due to conflicting opinions in previous cases. In one instance, the court allowed a joint petition by several creditors, emphasizing the permissibility under section 439(1)(b) of the Act. However, another judge later opined that each creditor, having distinct transactions with the company, must pay separate court-fees. This conflicting view led to the matter being referred to a Division Bench for resolution.
  
  The court considered the application of section 6 of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which mandates fees based on the aggregate value of reliefs sought in suits with distinct causes of action. The Government advocate argued that each creditor's cause of action was distinct, requiring separate court-fees. Citing precedents like Mota Singh v. State of Haryana and Ramesh Pande v. State of Karnataka, the advocate emphasized the need for individual fees when causes of action are separate. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that the cause of action in a winding-up petition is the company's commercial insolvency, benefiting all creditors collectively. It distinguished cases where separate fees were required for distinct reliefs sought by individual petitioners.
  
  The judgment highlighted that a winding-up petition is akin to class interest litigation, benefiting all creditors and contributories collectively. It emphasized that the order resulting from such a petition operates in favor of all creditors and contributories, as per section 447 of the Act. Drawing from legal principles, the court underscored that a company petition is not an individual litigation but a representative action for the entire class of creditors. It rejected the argument that distinct causes of action necessitate separate court-fees, emphasizing the collective nature of the relief sought in a winding-up petition.
  
  In conclusion, the court held that a single court-fee on a joint company petition by creditors is maintainable. It overruled the office's objection, emphasizing the collective nature of the cause of action in a winding-up scenario. The judgment clarified that the benefit of a winding-up order accrues to all creditors collectively, justifying the acceptance of a single court-fee in such cases.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 173
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Appointment of a provisional liquidator.
  2. Allegations of manipulation, fraud, and jeopardy to company assets.
  3. Dispute over shareholding and management between two groups.
  4. Validity and impact of various transactions on company assets.
  5. Legal principles and jurisdiction concerning provisional liquidator appointment.
  6. Bona fides of the petition for winding up.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Appointment of a Provisional Liquidator:
  The court considered an application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator for the respondent company pending the hearing and final disposal of the winding-up petition. The court noted prima facie evidence suggesting manipulation, fraud, and acts jeopardizing the company's assets by certain respondents.
  
  2. Allegations of Manipulation, Fraud, and Jeopardy to Company Assets:
  The court found that respondents Nos. 2, 5, and 8 had appropriated valuable company assets for personal gain, causing serious prejudice to the company and minority shareholders. Specific transactions, such as agreements dated September 17, 1986, and October 4, 1990, were scrutinized. The court found the supplemental agreement of October 4, 1990, grossly unfair and prejudicial, indicating lack of probity.
  
  3. Dispute Over Shareholding and Management Between Two Groups:
  The company was described as a domestic company with shares held by family members divided into two groups: the Jalgaon group (minority) and the Bombay group (majority). The court acknowledged ongoing disputes and litigations between these groups, affecting various partnership firms and companies. The court noted that the Jalgaon group had substantial shareholding but no representation on the board of directors.
  
  4. Validity and Impact of Various Transactions on Company Assets:
  The court examined several transactions, including purported sales and leases of company property to members of the Bombay group. Transactions dated May 22, 1992, and June 1, 1992, were found to be bogus and acts of manipulation. The court concluded that these transactions were intended to misappropriate company assets.
  
  5. Legal Principles and Jurisdiction Concerning Provisional Liquidator Appointment:
  The court discussed the legal framework under Section 450(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, and Rule 106 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It was held that the court has the jurisdiction to appoint a provisional liquidator at any time after the presentation of a winding-up petition if a strong prima facie case is made out. The court rejected the preliminary contention that the application was premature or that such an appointment required the company's consent.
  
  6. Bona Fides of the Petition for Winding Up:
  The court considered whether the petition for winding up was filed bona fide. The court found that the petition was legitimate and within the legal framework, and not intended to ruin the company. Offers made by the Bombay group to purchase shares from the Jalgaon group were seen as attempts to undervalue the shares.
  
  Conclusion and Orders:
  The court made the judge's summons absolute, appointing the official liquidator as the provisional liquidator with specific directions. The official liquidator was directed to take possession of certain company properties and maintain the status quo. The court also imposed an interim injunction and directed that no one should operate the company's bank accounts without leave of the court until the official liquidator takes charge. The court scheduled further hearings and directed the production of current books and minutes of the company for inspection.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 165
  
  The Revenue appealed against an order allowing respondents to clear pre-exemption stock without duty payment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the Revenue failed to demand duty in time despite knowing the facts, so the extended period cannot be applied based on suppression allegations.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 164
  
  Issues:
  - Reception of additional evidence and additional grounds in a Misc. application.
  - Appeal against duty and penalty imposed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  - Allegations of evasion of excise duty and circumvention by the appellant.
  - Challenge to the findings of the adjudicating authority regarding the manufacturing and clearance of goods without payment of duty.
  - Consideration of evidence, including seized documents and statements, to establish excise duty evasion.
  - Rejection of the request for introducing additional evidence at a late stage.
  - Reduction of penalty imposed while upholding the duty confirmed in the impugned order.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a Misc. application seeking to introduce additional evidence and grounds, related to an appeal against duty and penalty imposed on the appellant under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant, a small scale unit manufacturing electric wires and cables, was accused of evading excise duty. The authorities conducted a search, seizing goods and documents from various premises linked to the appellant. The appellant's proprietor admitted to purchasing goods from Delhi and supplying them under his brand name. The appellant contested the charges, arguing insufficient investigation by the Department and challenging the authenticity of seized documents. The adjudicating authority found discrepancies in the appellant's transactions, concluding evasion of excise duty through bogus invoices and fabricated records.
  
  The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings, emphasizing the appellant's evasion tactics, including issuing bogus gate passes and collecting excise duty without remitting it. The Tribunal rejected the request to introduce additional evidence belatedly, citing the principle that evidence not produced diligently earlier cannot be admitted later. While confirming the duty imposed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty considering the circumstances. The judgment highlighted the appellant's deliberate evasion efforts, supported by seized documents and statements, leading to the decision to uphold the duty but modify the penalty.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirmed the duty imposed on the appellant for excise duty evasion, rejecting the plea for additional evidence at a late stage. The judgment underscored the appellant's systematic circumvention of excise laws through fabricated records and evasion tactics, leading to the confirmation of duty with a reduced penalty.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 163
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
  2. Service of the impugned order on the applicant.
  3. Knowledge and receipt of the impugned order by the applicant.
  4. Presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
  The primary issue is the applicant's request for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The applicant contended that she was unaware of the impugned order until recently, as it was communicated to her by her daughter. The applicant claimed she was an illiterate lady and had no knowledge of the order until it was handed over to her by her daughter.
  
  2. Service of the Impugned Order:
  The applicant argued that the impugned order was never served on her. The department countered this by providing evidence from the postal department, indicating that the order was posted to the applicant on 25-4-1990 and was not returned, thus presumed served. Additionally, a copy was sent to the applicant's consultant, Mr. Alimchandani, who had requested it on 23-7-1990 and received it on 7-8-1990.
  
  3. Knowledge and Receipt of the Impugned Order:
  The applicant's affidavit stated that she was not informed about the order by her consultant, Mr. Alimchandani, and that she did not receive the order at her address. The department's evidence contradicted this, showing that the order was sent and received. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims unreliable, noting inconsistencies and the lack of an affidavit from the consultant to support her allegations.
  
  4. Presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act:
  The Tribunal relied on the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that a letter properly addressed, stamped, and posted is presumed to have been delivered. The applicant's bare denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut this presumption. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar v. Chandra Verma, emphasizing that unreliable testimony from the applicant could not rebut the presumption of service.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of service of the impugned order. The appeal and the stay application were consequently dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the need for parties to come with clean hands and provide reliable evidence, which the applicant failed to do in this case.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 162
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the impugned order is an order in adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962.
  2. Whether the appellant, a Customs House Agent, can be held liable for differential duty under the surety agreements executed by them.
  3. Whether the impugned order is appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1:
  The primary issue in this case is whether the impugned order constitutes an order in adjudication under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal examined the show cause notices issued to the importers and observed that the Department proceeded on the basis that the goods were imported by the two Companies, making the importers primarily liable for duty payment. The Tribunal held that the appellant, acting as a Customs House Agent, cannot automatically be considered the importer and be subject to adjudication for duty levy. It was concluded that the impugned order is not an order in adjudication and therefore not appealable before the Tribunal under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
  
  Issue 2:
  The next issue pertains to the liability of the appellant, a Customs House Agent, for the payment of differential duty under the surety agreements executed by them. The appellant contended that enforcement of the surety bond against them does not constitute an order in adjudication under the Act. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the enforcement of bond terms against a surety is not an order in adjudication and cannot be construed as such. The Tribunal emphasized that the Department must enforce the terms of the bond through appropriate legal proceedings and cannot shortcut the process by passing an order in adjudication against the surety.
  
  Issue 3:
  Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the question of appealability of the impugned order before the Tribunal under Section 129-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was held that since the impugned order was not considered an order in adjudication, an appeal against it would not lie before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, stating that the Department can enforce the terms of the bond through lawful means but cannot treat the enforcement as an order in adjudication under the Act.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the impugned order was not an order in adjudication, the appellant's liability under the surety agreements did not constitute an adjudication order, and therefore, the appeals were not maintainable before the Tribunal under the Customs Act, 1962.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 161
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Additional Duty Rules, 1976 on fabrics containing synthetic fiber.
  2. Classification of "Nonwoven" goods as fabric for levy of additional duty.
  3. Applicability of Notification No. 356/1976 on imported goods.
  4. Dispute on the liability of imported goods to additional countervailing duty.
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of Additional Duty Rules, 1976 on fabrics containing synthetic fiber
  
  The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of the Additional Duty Rules, 1976, specifically on fabrics containing more than 10% by weight of synthetic fiber or yarn. The Additional Duty Rules, framed under Notification No. 356/2-8-1976, specified that such fabrics would be liable to additional duty equal to the excise duty leviable on the material used in their manufacture. The imported goods in question were tested to contain 51.9% Polypropylene, a synthetic fiber, making them subject to the additional duty under Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal held that the levy under the Additional Duty Rules was applicable as the goods fell under the definition of textile fabric, as supported by authoritative texts and previous court decisions.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of "Nonwoven" goods as fabric for levy of additional duty
  
  The central issue revolved around whether the imported "Nonwoven" goods could be classified as fabric for the purpose of levying additional duty. The appellant contended that nonwovens should not be considered textile fabrics and, therefore, should not be subject to the additional duty. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld that nonwovens fell under the category of textile fabric, making them liable for the additional duty. The Tribunal supported this decision by referencing authoritative texts on textile fabrics and court precedents, which established that nonwovens were indeed considered as textile fabrics. The argument that nonwovens did not feature in certain schedules was dismissed, as the presence of synthetic fibers in the imported goods justified the levy of additional duty.
  
  Issue 3: Applicability of Notification No. 356/1976 on imported goods
  
  The case also addressed the applicability of Notification No. 356/1976 to the imported goods, particularly in relation to the ingredients present in the goods. The Tribunal found that the Polypropylene fiber content in the imported goods fell within the scope of the Additional Duty Rules, as it constituted a synthetic fiber used in the manufacture of fabrics. The argument that nonwovens did not align with specific schedules or notifications was rejected, as the presence of synthetic fibers triggered the levy of additional duty under the relevant provisions.
  
  Issue 4: Dispute on the liability of imported goods to additional countervailing duty
  
  The dispute primarily focused on the liability of the imported goods to additional countervailing duty under Section 3(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Department argued that the goods should be considered as fabrics, thereby making them subject to the additional duty under the applicable rules. Conversely, the respondents contended that nonwovens should not be classified as fabric and, therefore, should not attract the additional duty. The Tribunal sided with the Department, emphasizing that the imported goods met the criteria for additional duty as per the relevant provisions, and the contentions raised by the respondents were not tenable based on the evidence presented.
  
  In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the levy of additional duty on the imported goods, considering them as textile fabrics containing synthetic fibers. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant rules and notifications, as well as established definitions of textile fabrics in authoritative sources and court judgments. The Tribunal dismissed the arguments against the classification of nonwovens as fabric and ruled in favor of the Department, allowing the appeals and rejecting the Cross-Objection filed by the respondents.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 160
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of goods under the appropriate Tariff Item.
  2. Entitlement to exemption from Excise duty.
  3. Validity and timing of refund claims.
  4. Effectiveness of letters of protest and classification lists as claims for refund.
  5. Applicability of statutory provisions under Rule 233B and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  6. Precedents and judgments relevant to the case.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Classification of Goods Under the Appropriate Tariff Item
  The appellants, manufacturers of paper tubes, initially classified their product under Tariff Item 68 until 28-2-1982. Post the 1982-83 Budget, Tariff Item 17(4) was introduced, covering boxes, cartons, bags, and other packing containers of paper. The appellants argued that their product fell under this new item and was exempt from duty per Exemption Notification No. 62/82 dated 28-2-1982. However, the Department insisted that the paper cores were classifiable under Item 68, not under Item 17(4). This classification dispute was central to the case.
  
  2. Entitlement to Exemption from Excise Duty
  The appellants claimed exemption from duty under Notification No. 66/82 dated 28-2-1982, as amended by Notification 151/83 dated 13-5-1983. They argued that manufacturers in other regions were clearing similar products without paying duty. The Assistant Collector eventually approved their classification list under Item 17(4) with complete exemption on 28-2-1986, which was not challenged by the Department, making it final.
  
  3. Validity and Timing of Refund Claims
  The appellants filed refund claims for the duty paid in 1983-84 and 1984-85, which were rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred. The Collector (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, holding that the letter dated 18-5-1985 was the crucial date for payment under protest, making the 1984-85 refund claim admissible. However, the Collector (Appeals) later rejected this, stating that a protest letter is effective only from the date it is delivered to the proper officer.
  
  4. Effectiveness of Letters of Protest and Classification Lists as Claims for Refund
  The appellants argued that their letter dated 24-1-1983 indicated their disagreement with the Department's classification and should be considered a protest. They further contended that their letter dated 18-5-1985 constituted a constructive claim for refund. The Department argued that a protest letter could only cover future clearances and not past ones, per Rule 233B.
  
  5. Applicability of Statutory Provisions Under Rule 233B and Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
  The Department emphasized that a protest letter does not constitute a refund claim as per the Note under Rule 233B. The Tribunal noted that the statutory remedy of refund was only available within the parameters of Section 11B. Since the refund claims were filed beyond the permissible time limit and were not saved by a protest or provisional assessment, they were rightly rejected as time-barred.
  
  6. Precedents and Judgments Relevant to the Case
  The appellants cited several judgments to support their case, including:
  - Samrat International v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad: Limitation counts from the date of assessment of RT-12 returns.
  - Dulichand Shreelal v. Collector of Central Excise: Duty paid under mistake of law.
  - India Cements Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise: A letter raising objections against levy was treated as a protest.
  - J.B. Advani & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise: A revised classification list was treated as a refund claim.
  - Collector of Central Excise v. Niranjan Battery Corporation: Classification list claiming exemption treated as an application for necessary relief.
  
  The Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that the appellants' situation involved specific statutory provisions that were not applicable in the cited cases. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' failure to follow the prescribed procedure for protest and refund claims under Rule 233B and Section 11B barred their claims.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claims as time-barred, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for claiming refunds. The appellants' letters and classification lists, while indicating disagreement with the Department's classification, did not meet the requirements to constitute valid protest or refund claims under the applicable rules. The appeals were dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 159
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Charge of clandestine removal of excisable goods.
  2. Reliability of evidence, including statements and documents.
  3. Adequacy of investigation by the Department.
  4. Legal burden of proof on the Department.
  
  Summary:
  
  Charge of Clandestine Removal:
  The main issue for consideration was whether the evidence on record substantiated the charge of clandestine removal of tread rubber by the appellant for the period in question as set out in the show cause notice. The Department's case relied heavily on the "Anamath account" and other documents seized during the investigation.
  
  Reliability of Evidence:
  The appellant contended that the statements of Madhusudhana Rao and Raja Rao, who were aggrieved against him, were fabricated. The appellant also argued that no reliance could be placed on the statement of K.P. Menon, who admitted in cross-examination that his statement was made in collusion with the officers. The adjudicating authority's reliance on the "Anamath account" without corresponding verification of the entries therein was also challenged.
  
  Adequacy of Investigation:
  The investigation was found to be incomplete. The Department failed to verify the entries in the "Anamath account" by contacting various persons with whom transactions were recorded. The initial show cause notice was issued on 29-10-1982, and a second notice was issued on 9-9-1985 after further investigation. The delay and lack of thorough investigation were noted.
  
  Legal Burden of Proof:
  The onus was on the Department to prove the charge of clandestine removal. The absence of cash balance as per the "Anamath account" and the lack of seizure of raw rubber or any clear source of supply further weakened the Department's case. The adjudicating authority's reasoning that the appellant had not proved that the DDs were not received for illegal sales was found untenable in law. The appellant cannot be called upon to prove a negative; it was for the Department to establish the connection.
  
  Conclusion:
  The evidence on record did not sufficiently establish the charge of clandestine removal. The proceedings being penal in nature, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellant was exonerated of the charge due to insufficient evidence.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 158
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
  2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
  3. Validity of oral contract and ownership of goods.
  4. Applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act:
  The primary issue is whether the confiscation of the goods imported into India is lawful. The goods were seized and ordered for absolute confiscation by the Additional Collector of Customs as they were found to be dutiable and restricted, with no valid claims over them. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, which states that any goods imported or attempted to be imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by law are liable for confiscation. The appellants failed to produce a valid import license or any valid contract for the import, thus justifying the confiscation.
  
  2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
  The appellants contended that their letter dated 20-12-1991 was not considered by the adjudicating authority, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the letter was received by the Additional Collector of Customs. The address on the letter was vague, and no proof of dispatch or acknowledgment was provided. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no violation of natural justice as the letter was not proven to be received by the concerned authority.
  
  3. Validity of Oral Contract and Ownership of Goods:
  The appellants claimed that the goods were shipped based on an oral contract, which was not substantiated by any written confirmation. Both M/s. Uni Impex Corporation and M/s. Dad's Finance & Trading Co. denied placing any orders or having any interest in the goods. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide any evidence of a verbal contract, and the alleged importers disowned any such contract. The plea of sending goods on trust without any valid documents or L/C was deemed unacceptable. The Tribunal held that the appellants' claim of ownership based on an oral contract was not substantiated.
  
  4. Applicability of the Supreme Court Decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar:
  The appellants relied heavily on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, arguing that as the owner, they should be allowed to re-export the goods. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case from the Supreme Court case. In Sampat Raj Dugar, the import was covered by a valid license, and the importer had claimed the goods. In contrast, in the present case, there was no valid license, and the importers denied any contract. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision was confined to situations where the import was not contrary to law, which was not applicable here.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, finding no valid import license or contract, and determining that the import was contrary to law. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merits, and no option for re-export or redemption was granted due to the conduct of the appellants and the lack of valid documentation.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 157
  
  Issues:
  1. Seizure and confiscation of unaccounted manufactured goods.
  2. Dispute over the accounting of painted but uninspected springs.
  3. Alleged violation of Rule 57F in accounting for manufactured goods.
  4. Confiscation and penalty imposition.
  5. Quantum of fine and penalty.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The case involves the seizure and confiscation of unaccounted manufactured goods, specifically 16472 springs found at the appellant's factory. The Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur ordered a recovery of Rs. 10 lakhs towards redemption fine and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The appeal challenges this order (Order-in-Original No. 911992 dated 25-6-1992).
  
  2. The main dispute revolves around the accounting of painted but uninspected springs. The appellant argued that the springs should only be accounted for after inspection by relevant authorities like 'RITES' for Railways and internal inspection agency for automobile springs. The appellant cited previous tribunal decisions to support the view that accountal can be made only after inspection.
  
  3. Another issue raised was the alleged violation of Rule 57F in accounting for 1578 springs manufactured on job work basis for another company. The requirement to separately account for such goods was emphasized due to the Modvat credit implications for the supplier of inputs.
  
  4. The tribunal found that the springs, once painted, should be considered as fully manufactured goods and must be accounted for in the RG 1 register to secure potential duty revenue. Non-accountal of these goods rendered them liable to confiscation and imposed penal liability on the appellants. Confiscation was upheld for all springs except 1440, which was viewed as a technical lapse.
  
  5. Regarding the quantum of fine and penalty, the tribunal considered the lack of past misconduct allegations and reduced the fine to Rs. one lakh and the penalty to Rs. 10,000. The tribunal emphasized leniency due to the absence of evidence of previous misconduct and the nature of goods tailored for Railways.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the reduced fine and penalty, upholding the confiscation of unaccounted springs except for the technical lapse quantity.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 156
  
  The appeal was against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Delhi, dismissing the appeal due to procedural lapses. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case, citing the need to give appellants an opportunity to rectify the defects. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing a reasonable and liberal interpretation of provisions conferring the right of appeal. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was sent back to the Collector (Appeals) for a decision on the merits after the appellants comply with procedural requirements.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 155
  
  The stay application was filed regarding the duty demand on stored molasses in kachcha pits. The Additional Collector proceeded with adjudication without disposing of the remission application. The Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the appellants and granted the stay.

  ---

• 1992 (12) TMI 154
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Rule 57B regarding Higher Notional Credit
  Reasonableness of the time period to claim higher notional credit
  Applicability of Board's Circular and previous judgments
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Rule 57B concerning the Higher Notional Credit. The case revolved around the eligibility of the assessee to claim higher notional credit at a subsequent stage, beyond the initial entry of inputs. The respondents had initially taken Modvat credit based on duty paid, but later realized they were eligible for a higher notional credit under Rule 57A and Notification No. 175/86. The Department objected to the differential credit claimed later, arguing it should have been taken at the time of input receipt. The Asstt. Collector ordered reversal of the credit, which was partially allowed by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal, in its order, allowed the respondents to take the differential credit within a reasonable period of six months from the initial credit, a decision challenged by the Revenue through a reference application.
  
  The Tribunal analyzed the issues raised by the Revenue in the reference application. It noted that the interpretation of Rule 57B by the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal differed regarding the timing of claiming higher notional credit. The Tribunal observed that Rule 57 does not specify the timing for claiming higher notional credit, and rectifying an initial mistake within a reasonable period is permissible. The Tribunal considered the normal period of limitation for claiming a refund as a reasonable period for claiming the differential credit. The judgment referenced the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case, emphasizing the importance of eligibility and timely claim within a reasonable period.
  
  The Tribunal addressed the argument raised by the Revenue regarding the absence of a specific provision in the law for claiming higher notional credit at a later stage. While acknowledging the absence of a specific provision, the Tribunal emphasized that what is not prohibited in the rule can be permitted if eligibility is established and the claim is made within a reasonable period. The Tribunal agreed that there was a point of law requiring authoritative pronouncement for clarity. Consequently, it referred the following question to the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay for consideration: "Whether in the context of the provisions of Rule 57B read with Central Excise exemption Notification No. 175/86, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of higher notional credit within a period of six months from the initial credit, applying the time limit prescribed under Section 11B."
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to allow the claim of higher notional credit within a reasonable period of six months from the initial credit was based on the principle of rectifying initial mistakes and ensuring eligibility criteria are met. The reference to the High Court seeks a definitive ruling on the interpretation of Rule 57B and the reasonableness of the time period for claiming higher notional credit.

  ---

1234567........ 10