Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1994 1994 (6) 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 155 Records

• 1994 (6) TMI 176
  
  Issues:
  Calculation of time for filing a suit or application for recovery of a claim on behalf of a company ordered to be wound up.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment involves Appeal No. 64 of 1991, challenging a single judge's decision making the judge's summons absolute. The issue revolves around the interpretation of section 458A of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding the exclusion of time in computing the period of limitation for suits or applications on behalf of a company in liquidation. The judgment consolidates two matters with a common question - how to calculate time for filing a suit or application post a company's winding-up order.
  
  The court analyzed the facts of the case, including the execution of a promissory note, the winding-up petition, and subsequent legal proceedings. The key contention was whether the claim was time-barred, considering the provisions of section 458A. The court referred to previous judgments, notably the case of Ch. S. Rao v. Prabhudas S. Budhwani, and compared it with conflicting decisions from the Madras High Court.
  
  The court scrutinized section 458A, emphasizing its exclusionary nature in computing the limitation period for company-related suits or applications. It clarified that the provision does not establish a new limitation period but rather excludes specific time frames. The analysis highlighted the suspension and revival of the limitation period based on the winding-up order date and the cause of action accrual.
  
  The judgment critiqued the view that the official liquidator acquires a fresh cause of action or extended limitation period under article 137 of the Limitation Act. It distinguished the roles of the official liquidator and the company in liquidation, emphasizing that the limitation period attaches to the cause of action, not the individual prosecuting the claim.
  
  The court referenced a Division Bench case concerning the interpretation of section 458A, affirming the extension of the limitation period for the benefit of the company and the official liquidator. It endorsed the underlying objective of enabling the liquidator to manage the company's affairs and pursue debt recoveries on its behalf.
  
  Ultimately, the court overruled the previous judgment in Ch. S. Rao's case, asserting that section 458A does not create a new cause of action for the official liquidator. The judgment allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order, and dismissed another application as time-barred. No costs were awarded in the matter.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the computation of time for filing suits or applications on behalf of a company in liquidation, emphasizing the exclusionary provisions of section 458A and the continuity of the limitation period based on specific events in the winding-up process.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 160
  
  Issues:
  - Validity of the show-cause notice under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
  - Authority of the Special Director to issue the notice
  - Adjudicating officer's authority to sign the notice
  - Admission of the writ petition based on previous similar cases
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment in question pertains to a writ petition seeking to challenge a show-cause notice issued under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, regarding the confiscation of foreign currencies seized from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as it was issued by a Special Director who lacked the authority to do so under the Act. The court referenced a previous judgment by Kanakaraj J. which held that the Special Director was indeed empowered to issue such notices, as per a specific notification authorizing their role in enforcement under the Act.
  
  Regarding the contention that the Special Director did not sign the notice as the adjudicating officer, the court rejected this argument. It clarified that the Special Director, as an officer empowered to adjudicate cases under section 50 of the Act, could issue the show-cause notice in their capacity as an adjudicating officer. The court emphasized that the term "Adjudicating Officer" was defined under the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974, supporting the Special Director's authority in this matter.
  
  The petitioner also raised the issue of a similar writ petition being admitted and interim orders granted by the court on the same points. However, the court noted that the previous writ petition had been admitted before a final order that contradicted the petitioner's arguments. The court highlighted that the mere admission of a similar petition did not necessitate the admission of the present petition. Consequently, the court found no grounds for admitting the writ petition and dismissed it.
  
  Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of responding to show-cause notices, citing a Supreme Court observation that government servants must present their case before the concerned authority when such notices are issued. The court stressed that interference by the court at an early stage, before the government servant has shown cause, would be premature. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition as it was filed before the petitioner had responded to the show-cause notice, in line with the principles outlined by the Supreme Court.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the Special Director had the authority to issue the show-cause notice, and the petition was premature as it was filed before the petitioner had shown cause in response to the notice.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 159
  
  Issues:
  1. Delay in payment of redemption value for master shares.
  2. Compensation for loss of investment opportunity.
  3. Allegations of preferential treatment in payment.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Delay in payment of redemption value for master shares
  - The complainant held a significant number of master shares and opted for redemption as per the notification by the opposite party No. 1. The redemption value was not paid within the stipulated period, causing financial loss to the complainant.
  - The complainant expected to receive the redemption value by a certain date to invest in a public issue of shares, but the delay prevented them from seizing the investment opportunity.
  - The Commission found the delay in payment unjustifiable and ordered the opposite party to pay the redemption value within ten days from the date of the order.
  
  Issue 2: Compensation for loss of investment opportunity
  - The complainant calculated the potential earnings from investing the redemption amount in a public issue of shares, which was significantly higher than the compensation received.
  - The Commission acknowledged the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to the delay in payment and awarded additional compensation to cover the lost investment opportunity.
  - The compensation amount was determined based on the detailed calculations provided by the complainant in Annexure 'A' to the petition.
  
  Issue 3: Allegations of preferential treatment in payment
  - The complainant alleged that out-of-turn payments were made to other individuals, indicating preferential treatment by the opposite parties.
  - Despite the opposite parties not contesting the matter and failing to challenge the complainant's contentions, they attempted to settle the dispute at a late stage, which the complainant viewed as a delay tactic.
  - The Commission, considering the conduct of the opposite parties, directed them to pay the compensation and redemption value as ordered, without awarding interest for the past period.
  
  Conclusion:
  - The Commission allowed the complaints and directed the opposite party to pay the redemption value and compensation to the complainants within a specified timeframe, addressing the financial losses incurred due to the delayed payment of redemption value for the master shares.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 158
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the injunction order restraining the appellant and respondent No. 5 from obstructing respondent No. 1 from functioning as Chairman and Managing Director.
  2. Validity of the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Managing Director in light of his conviction for an offense involving moral turpitude.
  3. Whether the Delhi High Court's order suspending the operation of the conviction affects the applicability of Section 267 of the Companies Act.
  4. Impact of previous consent terms and settlements on the current legal standing of respondent No. 1.
  5. Whether the suit is maintainable if the relief in terms of prayer (b) is not granted.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Injunction Order:
  The judgment discusses the injunction order dated 17-8-1992, restraining the appellant and respondent No. 5 from obstructing or interfering with respondent No. 1's functioning as Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No. 2 company. The court upheld the injunction preventing the appellant from acting upon decisions taken at the alleged Board meeting on 13-7-1992 but set aside the injunction restraining the appellant from obstructing respondent No. 1 from functioning as Chairman and Managing Director.
  
  2. Validity of the Appointment:
  The court examined whether respondent No. 1 could be appointed or continue as Managing Director given his conviction for offenses involving moral turpitude. Section 267 of the Companies Act prohibits the appointment of a person convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude as a Managing Director. The court concluded that respondent No. 1's appointment as Managing Director was invalid due to his conviction, despite the suspension of the sentence by the Delhi High Court.
  
  3. Impact of Delhi High Court's Order:
  The court analyzed whether the Delhi High Court's order suspending the operation of the conviction affects the applicability of Section 267. It was determined that the suspension of the sentence does not equate to the suspension of the conviction itself. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for the suspension of the execution of the sentence or order but not the conviction. Thus, respondent No. 1's conviction remains in effect, disqualifying him from holding the position of Managing Director under Section 267.
  
  4. Previous Consent Terms and Settlements:
  The judgment considered the impact of previous consent terms and settlements where the appellant had accepted respondent No. 1's position as Managing Director despite his conviction. The court held that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply when there is a violation of statutory provisions. Therefore, previous settlements do not override the statutory disqualification under Section 267.
  
  5. Maintainability of the Suit:
  The court addressed the appellant's argument that the suit would not be maintainable if the relief in terms of prayer (b) is not granted. It was concluded that the suit is maintainable as it is not instituted solely by respondent No. 1 but also by the company and another director. Even if respondent No. 1 cannot prosecute the suit as Managing Director, he can still proceed as a shareholder.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was partly allowed. The court set aside the injunction restraining the appellant from obstructing respondent No. 1 from functioning as Chairman and Managing Director but upheld the injunction preventing the appellant from acting upon decisions taken at the alleged Board meeting on 13-7-1992. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 267, which disqualifies respondent No. 1 from holding the position of Managing Director due to his conviction.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 140
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Necessity of a report from the official liquidator under the second proviso to Section 394 of the Companies Act for sanctioning amalgamation.
  2. Applicability of the second proviso to Section 394(1) in cases of amalgamation.
  3. Whether dissolution without winding up is necessary in all cases of amalgamation.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Necessity of a Report from the Official Liquidator under the Second Proviso to Section 394 of the Companies Act for Sanctioning Amalgamation:
  
  The appellants contended that the High Court cannot sanction any arrangement for amalgamation without obtaining a report from the official liquidator to the effect that the affairs of the transferor company have not been conducted prejudicially to the interest of its members or to the public. This contention is based on the second proviso to Section 394 of the Companies Act, which mandates such a report as indispensable for granting the sanction. The learned single judge repelled this contention, relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Official Liquidator v. Madura Co. P. Ltd. [1975] KLT 562. The Division Bench, while hearing the appeal, felt that the decision in Madura Co. P. Ltd. requires reconsideration and hence referred the matter to the Full Bench.
  
  2. Applicability of the Second Proviso to Section 394(1) in Cases of Amalgamation:
  
  The Full Bench examined whether the second proviso to Section 394(1) applies to all cases of amalgamation or only to those involving companies under winding up. The court noted that the second proviso is intended to apply to cases where "dissolution without winding up" takes place. The Division Bench in Madura Co. P. Ltd. had held that the second proviso would apply only in cases where the first proviso applies, emphasizing the word "further" to denote an additional safeguard. However, the Full Bench disagreed, stating that the word "further" is often used in legislative drafting to indicate the beginning of a new clause and does not necessarily mean that it is an additional provision in conformity with the preceding proviso.
  
  The court referred to various judgments, including those from the Madras High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Calcutta High Court, which supported the view that the second proviso may operate in different situations and is not necessarily dependent on the first proviso. The court concluded that the second proviso to Section 394(1) can apply independently and is not restricted to situations covered by the first proviso.
  
  3. Whether Dissolution Without Winding Up is Necessary in All Cases of Amalgamation:
  
  The court examined whether "dissolution without winding up" is a necessary consequence of amalgamation. It noted that "amalgamation" involves the blending or uniting of two or more undertakings into one, but it does not necessarily result in the dissolution of the transferor company. The court referred to the definition of "dissolution" under Section 481 of the Companies Act, which involves the complete winding up of a company's affairs or the court's opinion that the liquidator cannot proceed with the winding up due to lack of funds or other reasons.
  
  The court emphasized that the legal process of dissolution can take place after the commencement of winding up steps, and "dissolution without winding up" means dissolution without completely winding up the company. Therefore, dissolution is not an inevitable consequence of amalgamation, and the second proviso to Section 394(1) need not apply in all cases of amalgamation.
  
  In this case, the petitioners did not make out a case for the dissolution of the transferor company, despite including a prayer for dissolution among other reliefs. The court found no scope for ordering dissolution based on the facts and concluded that the amalgamation could be sanctioned without granting the relief for dissolution.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Full Bench concluded that the second proviso to Section 394(1) of the Companies Act is not necessarily applicable in all cases of amalgamation and that dissolution without winding up is not a mandatory consequence of amalgamation. The court confirmed the learned single judge's order sanctioning the amalgamation without granting the relief for dissolution and sent the case back to the Division Bench for disposal of the appeal, addressing other factual issues if raised.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 139
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Can the State be compelled not to disinvest from a Government company at the instance of the employees?
  2. Whether the decision to disinvest violates the rights conferred by Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether the decision to disinvest is subject to judicial review.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Compulsion on the State to Not Disinvest:
  The primary question is whether the State can be compelled to refrain from disinvesting from a Government company based on the employees' concerns. The court examined the viability of the company and the substantial financial losses it has incurred. Southern Structurals Limited, initially a private entity, became a Government company in 1978 after the State acquired over 99% of its shares. Despite continuous financial support, the company has remained unprofitable, with accumulated losses exceeding its net worth. The court noted that the rehabilitation of the company would require further significant financial investment from the State, which has already provided substantial concessions. Given this background, the court found that the decision to disinvest, aimed at reducing the financial burden on the State Exchequer, is reasonable and not arbitrary.
  
  2. Violation of Rights Under Articles 14 and 16:
  The petitioners argued that disinvestment would deprive them of their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which protect equality before the law and equality of opportunity in public employment, respectively. The court clarified that employees of a Government company are not Government servants. They do not hold civil posts, and their employer is the company, not the Government. The Government's role as a shareholder does not confer upon the employees the status of Government employees. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., which established that employees of Government companies do not hold civil posts and cannot invoke Article 311. Therefore, the employees' rights under Articles 14 and 16 are not violated by the disinvestment.
  
  3. Judicial Review of the Decision to Disinvest:
  The court addressed whether the decision to disinvest is subject to judicial review. It observed that economic policy decisions, such as disinvestment, are generally not amenable to judicial review unless they violate constitutional or statutory provisions or are mala fide or arbitrary. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observation in Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, which stated that the validity of public policy is only considered when it infringes fundamental rights. The court found no evidence of mala fide or arbitrary action in the State's decision to disinvest, which was taken after careful consideration and approval by successive popular governments. The decision was based on the need to reduce the financial burden on the State and redirect resources to essential services like primary education and healthcare.
  
  4. Article 19(1)(g) and Right to Employment:
  The petitioners contended that disinvestment would violate their right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, which distinguished between the right to pursue a calling and the right to work in a specific post. The court concluded that disinvestment does not automatically lead to the closure of the company or loss of employment. Even if retrenchment occurs, employees have recourse under industrial laws. The right to work as industrial workers is not infringed by disinvestment, as it does not prevent them from seeking employment elsewhere.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the State's decision to disinvest from Southern Structurals Limited is reasonable, does not violate constitutional rights, and is not subject to judicial review in the absence of mala fide or arbitrary action. The State's concern for the welfare of the employees was acknowledged, and the court expressed confidence that the State would take measures within its resources to assist the employees. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 138
  
  Issues:
  Claim for redemption value of shares, Compensation for delay, Interest on compensation and redemption amount, Compensation for mental torture/anxiety, Settlement attempt by opposite party, Admission of fault by opposite party, Payment of redemption value and compensation, Award of interest, Award of costs
  
  The judgment pertains to a complaint filed by the petitioner who held 17,400 Master shares purchased from the stock market. The opposite party No. 1 declared a redemption scheme for Master shareholders at Rs. 49.70 per share, with specific deadlines for lodging shares and forms. The petitioner opted for redemption based on the promise of payment within 30 days. However, the redemption value was not received within the stipulated period, causing the petitioner to miss out on investing in a lucrative public share issue of State Bank of India. The petitioner sought direction for payment of the redemption sum and compensation for missed investment opportunities. The opposite parties failed to contest the matter initially and later suggested an amicable settlement, which the petitioner rejected as a delay tactic. The opposite party No. 1 admitted fault for the delayed payment and made a partial compensation payment, which the petitioner found inadequate.
  
  The Commission found in favor of the petitioner, directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay the redemption value of Rs. 8,64,780 within ten days, adjusted for the partial payment already made. Additionally, a compensation amount of Rs. 3,17,130 was awarded, reduced by the amount already paid. The Commission declined to award interest for the past period but ordered the opposite party to pay costs assessed at Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner. The judgment disposed of the complaint, holding the opposite party liable for the delayed redemption payment and inadequate compensation, thus providing relief to the petitioner for the financial loss incurred due to the delay in payment.
  
  ---

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 137
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of maturity dates in investment scheme brochure and pamphlet, Doctrine of promissory estoppel application, Alleged deficiency of service by the Unit Trust of India, Chairman's power to relax scheme provisions.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Interpretation of Maturity Dates: The case involved a dispute regarding the maturity dates of investments made in a scheme by a guardian for minors, based on the terms mentioned in the scheme brochure and pamphlet. The complainants argued that the maturity amount should be paid upon the completion of 20 years of age by the minors, as per the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet.
  
  2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The District Forum applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, holding that the guardian relied on the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet while investing in the scheme. The Forum concluded that the opposite party could not retract from the promised maturity dates after the investment was made, estopping them from changing the terms to the disadvantage of the investors.
  
  3. Alleged Deficiency of Service: The Unit Trust of India contended that the maturity dates were correctly mentioned based on the lock-in period specified in the scheme approved by the board. They argued that the brochure might have caused ambiguity by mentioning the child's age instead of the lock-in period. However, the District Forum found in favor of the complainants, emphasizing that the representations in the brochure and pamphlet were binding.
  
  4. Chairman's Power to Relax Scheme Provisions: The District Forum highlighted Clause XXXII of the Scheme, allowing the Chairman to relax or delete any provisions for mitigating hardship or ensuring smooth operation of the scheme. In this context, the Forum suggested that the Chairman could exercise this power in favor of the complainants to address the dispute regarding maturity dates and uphold the principles of promissory estoppel.
  
  5. Final Decision: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing that the representations made in the brochure and pamphlet were binding on the Unit Trust of India. The Commission found in favor of the complainants, citing the application of promissory estoppel and the reliance placed on the promised maturity dates by the guardian. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 136
  
  Issues: Application for refund of initial deposit under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969
  
  Analysis:
  1. The applicant sought a refund of the initial deposit of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 1,200 paid to two respondents under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The applicant alleged that one respondent mounted a scheme promising profits to clients within a short period without liability for losses. The applicant, impressed by the scheme, deposited Rs. 10,000 and requested a post-dated cheque as per the circular.
  
  2. Notices were issued to both respondents, but they were absent during the hearing. The Commission proceeded ex parte against the respondents. The applicant filed an affidavit stating that he received back the initial deposit of Rs. 10,000 but sought a refund of the non-refundable Rs. 1,200 as the scheme was of no use to him. The applicant submitted documents supporting his claims, including circulars and correspondence with the respondents.
  
  3. The Commission found that the respondents failed to fulfill their promises as per the scheme, substantiated by evidence of non-receipt of accounts, dishonored cheques, and apologies from the respondents. It concluded that the respondents engaged in unfair trade practices, misleading the public and prejudicing investors' interests, violating section 36A(1)(vi) of the Act.
  
  4. The Commission acknowledged the unauthorised retention of the initial deposit and awarded the applicant Rs. 3,900 under section 12B, along with 18% interest on the Rs. 10,000 from the date of possession to the date of refund. Additionally, a cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on respondent No. 2. The respondent was directed to pay the awarded amount within six weeks, failing which enforcement through court processes was permitted.
  
  5. The application for refund of the initial deposit was thus disposed of, granting relief to the applicant and penalizing the respondent for unfair trade practices and unauthorized retention of funds.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 113
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Confiscation of 61,000 biris.
  2. Demand of Central Excise duty on 3,85,16,000 biris.
  3. Imposition of penalty on M/s. A.N. Guha & Co.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Confiscation of 61,000 biris:
  The Central Excise Officers seized 61,000 unbranded biris from the residential premises adjacent to the factory of M/s. A.N. Guha & Co. These biris were not accounted for in the prescribed register and were stored in an unapproved premises. The officers confiscated the biris u/r 9(2) read with Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 100/-. The Appellants contended that these biris were damaged and unfit for sale, kept to retrieve tobacco, and thus not liable for duty. However, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation, stating that the Appellants failed to prove their claim.
  
  2. Demand of Central Excise duty on 3,85,16,000 biris:
  The officers found discrepancies between the Octroi tax receipts and the transit notes, indicating that 3,85,16,000 biris were received and sold without payment of duty. The Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,28,048.73 on 3,33,89,500 biris after accounting for reconciliations and miscalculations. The Appellants argued that the Octroi receipts were not reliable and that the entries in their RG 12B Register were based on transit notes. The Tribunal held that the Appellants failed to rebut the evidence of clandestine removal, as the Octroi receipts were in their name and found in their premises. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand.
  
  3. Imposition of penalty on M/s. A.N. Guha & Co.:
  A penalty of Rs. 6,000/- was imposed on the Appellants for violating Rules 9(1), 52A, 52, 94, 226, and 47 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the Appellants' actions amounted to wilful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the confiscation of 61,000 biris, the duty demand on 3,33,89,500 biris, and the imposition of penalty, stating that the clandestine removal was proved by the Department and the Appellants failed to rebut the same.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 111
  
  Issues:
  - Timeliness of the appeal
  - Ownership of the seized goods
  - Burden of proof on the Department
  - Applicability of past decisions
  - Failure to disclose sources of acquisition
  - Legal principles regarding burden of proof
  
  Timeliness of the Appeal:
  The appeal was filed by the appellant against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. The Junior Departmental Representative raised concerns about the timeliness of the appeal, stating that it might be barred by limitation. The appellant requested the case to be decided based on written submissions.
  
  Ownership of the Seized Goods:
  The case involved the seizure of 1397 pieces of Ball Bearings of foreign origin from M/s. Internal Road Services. The goods were valued at Rs. 71,265.00 and were suspected to be smuggled. The appellant claimed to have purchased the goods through cash payment from the open market in Calcutta. However, the Department argued that the appellant, as the Manager, could not claim ownership of the goods and had no case on merits.
  
  Burden of Proof on the Department:
  The Department seized the ball bearings based on a reasonable belief of smuggling. The appellant contended that the burden was on the Department to prove the goods were smuggled, which they failed to do. However, the Department argued that the appellant did not disclose the source of acquisition and failed to provide proper documentation, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant.
  
  Applicability of Past Decisions:
  The appellant relied on past decisions to support their case, but the Tribunal found that those decisions were not applicable to the facts of this case. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases involving foreign-origin goods valued over Rs. 70,000, the Department did not need to prove its case with mathematical precision.
  
  Failure to Disclose Sources of Acquisition:
  The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to disclose the names of the persons from whom they acquired the foreign ball bearings. The appellant's vague statement about purchasing the goods in Calcutta from the open market through dalals without providing specific details led the Tribunal to conclude that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proving lawful acquisition.
  
  Legal Principles Regarding Burden of Proof:
  Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted that when the Department provides sufficient evidence of smuggling, the burden shifts to the appellant to prove lawful acquisition. In this case, the Department's initial burden of proving smuggling was discharged as the appellant could not provide essential details or documentation regarding the purchase of the seized goods. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the confiscation and penalty imposed by the Department, dismissing the appeal.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 110
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Inclusion of royalty charges in the assessable value of the concentrate.
  2. Inclusion of advertisement/sale promotion expenses in the assessable value of the concentrate.
  3. Prima facie merits of the stay application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of central excise duty.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Inclusion of Royalty Charges in the Assessable Value of the Concentrate:
  
  The appellants, engaged in the production of aerated water concentrate, argued that royalty charges recovered from manufacturers of aerated waters should not be included in the assessable value of the concentrate supplied to their franchise holders. They relied on the decisions in *Duke & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise* and *Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon*, which held that franchise fees and royalty charges were not includible in the assessable value of the concentrate or imported goods, respectively.
  
  However, the respondents contended that the sale of concentrate was interlinked with royalty charges, as the concentrate was supplied only to those who had entered into agreements with the appellants. The royalty was related to the quantity of aerated waters produced from the supplied concentrate, indicating that the sale of concentrate and the collection of royalty were part of the same transaction. The Tribunal noted that the concentrate was not freely marketed and was sold only to licensed manufacturers under franchise agreements, establishing a link between the supply of concentrate and the collection of royalty.
  
  2. Inclusion of Advertisement/Sale Promotion Expenses in the Assessable Value of the Concentrate:
  
  The appellants argued that advertisement expenses incurred for soft drinks manufactured by bottlers should not be included in the assessable value of the concentrate. They maintained that these expenses were not required for the marketability of the concentrate and were already included in the declared price of the concentrate, on which duty had been paid. They cited the Supreme Court decision in *Bombay Tyres International* to support their claim that advertisement expenses for products not manufactured by them should not be added to the assessable value.
  
  The Tribunal, however, found a link between the advertisement expenses and the concentrate, as the expenses were included in the price of the concentrate. The agreement required bottlers to undertake advertising and sales promotion activities, suggesting that the extra collections in the name of royalty were additional consideration for the sale of the concentrate. The Tribunal concluded that the advertisement expenses were related to the sale of the concentrate and should be included in the assessable value.
  
  3. Prima Facie Merits of the Stay Application for Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery of Central Excise Duty:
  
  The Tribunal considered the prima facie merits of the case and the relevant facts and circumstances for the stay application. The appellants contended that the royalty charges were not related to the sale of the concentrate and should not be included in the assessable value. They also argued that if royalty charges were treated as additional consideration, the assessable value should be redetermined, potentially reducing the differential duty amount.
  
  The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' arguments but found that the extra sums collected as royalty were part of the price for the concentrate and should be included in the assessable value. However, the Tribunal also recognized that requiring the appellants to pre-deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,16,96,131 would cause undue hardship. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to deposit Rs. 1 crore within 12 weeks, waiving the pre-deposit of the balance amount and staying its recovery until the disposal of the appeal.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal held that both royalty charges and advertisement/sale promotion expenses were to be included in the assessable value of the concentrate. The stay application was granted conditionally, requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 1 crore while waiving the pre-deposit of the remaining amount and staying its recovery pending the appeal's disposal.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 109
  
  Issues:
  Prayer for restoration of appeal due to non-prosecution; Application for recalling of order; Wilful negligence or omission by appellant; Delay in compliance with court's order; Procedural rules for non-compliance; Bona fide of appellants; Precedent of C.C.E. v. Leatherite Industries Ltd.; Supreme Court's stance on procedural requirements; Gravity of lapse in non-compliance; Access to justice vs. procedural steps; Recall of earlier order and listing of appeal for hearing.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellant filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal due to non-prosecution, which was treated as an application for recalling of the order by the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay in compliance was not due to wilful negligence but a mistake by the previous counsel, justifying the non-prosecution. The Department did not object to this argument, leading to the Tribunal accepting the application for recalling the order. The Tribunal emphasized the bona fide nature of the appellant's actions, citing a precedent where the Tribunal held that penal actions for non-compliance must be proportionate to the lapse.
  
  The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision highlighting the importance of procedural requirements in facilitating justice. It emphasized that penalties for non-compliance should not impede access to justice, and the gravity of the lapse should be considered before dismissing an appeal. The Tribunal noted the negligence of the Department in complying with the court's order but acknowledged the subsequent compliance, leading to the decision to recall the earlier order and list the appeal for hearing on merits.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, recalling the earlier order and scheduling the appeal for a hearing on the specified date. The decision was based on the principle that procedural steps should not obstruct access to justice, and penalties for non-compliance should be proportionate to the gravity of the lapse, as established by legal precedents and the Supreme Court's stance on procedural requirements.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 108
  
  Issues:
  1. Classification of Polyster film as an input for modvat credit.
  2. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions.
  3. Interpretation of the term "inputs" under Rule 57A.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of Polyster film as an input for modvat credit
  The appellant, M/s. Hilton Rubbers Ltd., filed an appeal against the Addl. Collector's order, which denied modvat credit on Polyster film used in manufacturing Conveyor belts. The department argued that the film was not raw material but an appliance used in the manufacturing process. The appellant contended that the film was essential in vulcanization, preventing the belt from sticking to calender plates and providing a smooth surface. The Tribunal found that the film was consumed in the process and met the criteria of an input, allowing the appeal.
  
  Issue 2: Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions
  The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions in cases involving BOPP films to support their claim. The Tribunal clarified that its decisions have general applicability, contrary to the Addl. Collector's view that they were only applicable to specific units. By comparing the use of plastic film in the current case to BOPP films in previous cases, the Tribunal determined that the plastic film qualified as an input based on the principles established in earlier decisions.
  
  Issue 3: Interpretation of the term "inputs" under Rule 57A
  The Tribunal examined the definition of "inputs" under Rule 57A, which excludes certain items like machinery and equipment. By analyzing the nature of the plastic film and its consumption in the manufacturing process, the Tribunal concluded that it met the criteria of an input and did not fall under any exclusion category. Citing a decision of the Calcutta High Court on modvat credit, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim for modvat credit on the plastic film.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by M/s. Hilton Rubbers Ltd., overturning the Addl. Collector's order and recognizing the plastic film as an input eligible for modvat credit based on its consumption in the manufacturing process and compliance with relevant legal criteria.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 104
  
  Issues:
  1. Duty demand on molasses stored in temporary pits beyond permission validity.
  2. Applicability of Rule 49 in case of destruction of goods due to natural causes.
  3. Requirement of remission application for duty on destroyed goods.
  4. Interpretation of duty payment under Rule 49 in the context of natural causes.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal involved M/s. Sarjoo Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. challenging a duty demand of Rs. 3,48,790.05 on 1,10,727 quintals of molasses stored in temporary pits beyond the permission validity. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the demand citing unauthorized storage and lack of duty remission application by the appellants. The Tribunal noted the destruction of molasses due to floods and the contention that no removal occurred within Rule 49 framework.
  
  2. The Advocate argued that duty can only be demanded upon actual removal, emphasizing the destruction of molasses and reliance on case laws supporting no duty imposition for goods lost to natural causes. The Department Representative countered by highlighting the absence of evidence for permission extension requests and remission applications, distinguishing cited cases based on permission status and cause of destruction.
  
  3. The Tribunal acknowledged the failure to apply for remission and lack of verification on the extent of loss due to natural causes. Referring to precedents, it emphasized the need for evidence establishing loss from natural causes and the duty non-requirement in such scenarios under Rule 49. The Tribunal directed a remand to verify the loss cause and instructed against duty imposition if proven due to natural causes.
  
  4. Rule 49 was interpreted to mandate duty payment only upon goods' issuance or removal, exempting losses from natural causes. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of authorities satisfying themselves on the loss cause before demanding duty. The decision highlighted the duty exemption for goods lost or destroyed by natural causes, emphasizing the importance of verifying such losses before imposing duty obligations. The appeal was allowed for remand to reassess the duty imposition based on the cause of molasses loss or destruction.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 103
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund claim rejection based on compliance with Notification No. 35/76-C.E.
  2. Entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. despite availing benefits under Notification No. 210/73-C.E.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal concerned a refund claim filed by the appellants for excess duty paid on sugar cleared during a specific period. The claim was made under Notification No. 35/76-C.E., which required a certificate from the Chief Director of Sugar & Vanaspati to avail of certain incentives. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim due to the lack of a certificate at the time of filing. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
  
  2. The appellants argued that they submitted a provisional certificate of eligibility along with the claim, as the final certificate was not issued at the time. They contended that the provisional certificate was valid until the final one was issued, and the claim should not be rejected for this reason. Additionally, they asserted that since their factory was set up after 1-4-1974, they were entitled to benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E., even though they were availing benefits under Notification No. 210/73-C.E. The appellants relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court to support their position.
  
  3. The Revenue, represented by the SDR, argued that besides the certificate issue, the appellants were not eligible for benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. because they were already availing benefits under Notification No. 210/73-C.E. The Revenue highlighted the proviso in Notification No. 35/76-C.E. as a basis for their argument.
  
  4. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Notification No. 35/76-C.E. and concluded that the appellants met the conditions for eligibility under this notification. The Tribunal found that the appellants were justified in claiming benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. despite availing benefits under a different notification, as the latter was not applicable to a factory covered by the former. Given the substantial benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority.
  
  5. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to reevaluate the refund claim in light of the observations made and to issue an appropriate order after hearing both parties. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the entitlement of the appellants to benefits under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 102
  
  Issues: Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 8544.00, retrospective application of classification change, waiver of pre-deposit of duty
  
  Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 8544.00:
  The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of push-in-cords manufactured by the appellants for use as a connection of wire between the telephone receiver and the main electric connection for the telephone. The goods were initially assessed under Tariff Item 68 but were proposed to be classified as electric wires and cables under Tariff Heading 8544.00 by the department. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification under Tariff Heading 8517, but later revised the classification to Tariff Heading 8544.00. The appellant argued that any change in classification should take effect prospectively, not retrospectively.
  
  Retrospective application of classification change:
  The appellant contended that the change in classification on 18-6-1992 should not affect the duty demand for periods before that date. The appellant argued that the demand for duty for periods before the classification change should not be sustainable. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument, stating that while the department can change the classification, such changes should take place prospectively. The Tribunal allowed the stay petition unconditionally and directed the case to be heard out of turn.
  
  Waiver of pre-deposit of duty:
  The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,09,855.92 and Rs. 6,75,820/- demanded for specific periods. The appellant's advocate argued for the unconditional allowance of the stay petition without any prior deposit, citing the settled principle of law that any change in classification should not act retrospectively. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, agreed with the appellant and allowed the stay petition unconditionally, directing the case to be heard promptly.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment primarily addressed the classification of goods under Tariff Heading 8544.00, the retrospective application of classification changes, and the waiver of pre-deposit of duty. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that classification changes should take effect prospectively and allowed the stay petition without any prior deposit.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 101
  
  The appellants did not appear for the hearing. The request for adjournment was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for default in appearance. The appeal was against the order extending the period for issue of show cause notice.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 100
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Sections 35 and 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding filing of appeals against orders passed on multiple show cause notices.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a situation where the lower authority disposed of demands raised under 5 show cause notices through a common order. The appellant argued that since there was only one order, they were required to file only one appeal as per Sections 35 and 35B of the Act. The appellant contended that when multiple show cause notices involve common issues, a single order disposing of all notices should be considered as one order for appeal purposes. The Tribunal examined the definition of "order" and "decision" under legal dictionaries and previous cases to determine the scope of these terms in the context of quasi-judicial powers exercised by authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that each show cause notice culminates in an order or decision, even if disposed of through a common order, and each notice should be treated as a separate order for appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that as many appeals as the number of show cause notices involved in the common order should be filed.
  
  The Tribunal noted that while a show cause notice is not an order, its adjudication results in an order. Authorities with quasi-judicial powers are required to issue orders or decisions after issuing show cause notices. The Tribunal clarified that a common order covering multiple show cause notices should be considered as separate orders for each notice. The Tribunal rejected the argument that only one appeal should be filed for show cause notices arising from a common issue, emphasizing that each notice must be treated individually for appeal purposes. The Tribunal held that the number of appeals should match the number of show cause notices involved in the common order, and appellants could file supplementary appeals for remaining cases.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that each show cause notice results in an order or decision, even if disposed of through a common order. Therefore, each notice should be treated as a separate order for appeal purposes, necessitating the filing of as many appeals as the number of show cause notices involved in the common order. The Tribunal advised the appellant to relate the appeal to one notice and file supplementary appeals for the remaining cases, seeking condonation of delay as per the law.

  ---

• 1994 (6) TMI 99
  
  Issues: Classification of Bus Ducts under CETA, 1985; Time bar for demand of duty; Benefit of Notification 69/86
  
  Classification of Bus Ducts under CETA, 1985:
  The dispute in this case revolves around the appropriate classification of Bus Ducts manufactured by the appellants under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Department contends that Bus Ducts should be classified under Heading 85.44 as "other insulated electric conductors," while the appellants argue that the correct classification is under Heading 85.36 as "electrical apparatus for making connections to or in electrical circuits." The appellants support their classification with pamphlets, classification lists, gate passes, and RT 12 returns, all consistently describing the item as Bus Ducts used for tapping electricity in electric circuits. The Department, on the other hand, asserts that Bus Ducts are insulated electric conductors and not electrical apparatus for making connections, citing the physical characteristics of the item and trade notices for support.
  
  Time bar for demand of duty:
  Regarding the time limitation for demanding duty, the appellants argue that the demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 25-9-1992 for the period from 31-1-1987 to 25-9-1991. They contend that they had consistently filed classification lists, gate passes, and RT 12 returns describing the item as Bus Ducts, which were approved by the Department, except for the year 1987 when the item was not declared. The Department, however, argues that deliberate misclassification occurred in subsequent years by describing the item as parts suitable for use with apparatus of Heading 85.37, thereby justifying the demand within the limitation period.
  
  Benefit of Notification 69/86:
  The appellants seek the benefit of Notification 69/86 dated 10-2-1986, which provides for a concessional rate of duty for certain items. The Department concedes that if the item is classified under Heading 85.44, the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the notification, attracting a lower rate of duty at 25%. However, the Department maintains that the item is correctly classified under Heading 85.44 as insulated electric conductors.
  
  Judgment:
  After hearing both parties, the Tribunal acknowledges that the classification issue requires detailed examination at the final hearing with reference to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and product catalogues. However, the Tribunal finds a strong prima facie case on the limitation issue in favor of the appellants due to the approved classification lists, RT 12 returns, and other material submitted to the Department. The Tribunal rules that there was no deliberate misclassification warranting the invocation of the extended period of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal waives the pre-deposit requirement of duty and penalty and stays the recovery pending the appeal, which is scheduled for final hearing on 29-6-1994 along with similar matters involving comparable issues.

  ---

1234567........ 8