|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 119 - SC ORDER
Appeal to the Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... to the Revenue as realisation for the sale of goods . 2. Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned Counsel for the respondent, who also appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal, submits before us that no such argument was made. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for leave to withdraw the civil appeals to enable the appellant to move the Tribunal in review. 4. The civil appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2001 (3) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Writ jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ting that Tribunal has taken a liberal view directing to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs when considered in the background of factual aspect which lead to the adjudication. 5. While exercising the writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature, the scope for interference is very limited. Unless the order is perverse, unreasonable and/or based on no material, there would be hardly any scope for interference. We find that the Tribunal has analysed the factual position keeping in view the legal principles applicable, in particular it referred to the petitioner s submission about the effect of the order passed by the Settlement Commission. That being the position, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. However, since the period of deposit as fixed by Tribunal is over, we extend the time for deposit till the end of May, 2001. Petitioner shall report compliance before the Tribunal on the 6th of June, 2001 without any further notice. Petition stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR
Modvat - Transitional provision - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... vate Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). 5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 116 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... titioner has equal, efficacious and comprehensive legal remedies under Sections 35G and H of the Act since it is case of the Petitioners that the Respondent authorities of the Excise Department have assumed the jurisdiction wrongly by wrongly classifying the subject goods. That plea can very well be the subject matter of reference as envisaged under Sections 35G and H of the Act. It is well settled that normally, the High Courts do not invoke discretionary power under Article 226 to review the impugned orders, particularly when the party approaching this Court under Article 226 has efficacious alternative statutory remedy. 4. Since the Petitioners are having such a remedy under Sections 35G and H of the Act, we are not persuaded to exercise the discretionary power under Article 226. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed reserving liberty to the Petitioners to avail the remedy under Sections 35G and H of the Act in accordance with law, if it were so advised. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... orted in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 75 (Kar.) 2000 (3) KLJ, 356, wherein the Division Bench held that since this particular substance would ultimately have to be categorized as an input, that the denial of Modvat credit on duties paid on these items was not right in law. 4. In view of this position, the reference in question is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent department. 5. The TRC in question accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... 1999. It is seen from the letter (Annexure-C) filed along with the additional affidavit of the petitioner, that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Ratlam and is carrying on business there and is an assessee of the Income Tax Department and that he is filing his income tax returns regularly. 12.The result of the above discussions is that the writ petition is allowed. Since, the petitioner has been denied the use of the money we direct that the petitioner shall be entitled for refund of currency amounting to Rs. 10,49,000/- along with interest 18 per annum as prayed for in the writ petition from the date of confiscation i.e. 26-3-1996. The second respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,49,000/- along with accrued interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order either from this court or from the petition whichever is earlier. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner.
-
2001 (3) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ase No. 5 of 1997 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Technological Institute of Textile decided on 9-11-1998, it was held that the High Court within whose jurisdiction adjudicating authority functions would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. We have also expressed similar view in Central Excise Act Case No. 7 of 2000 disposed of on 30-10-2000 taking note of decision of the Apex Court in Stridewell Leather (P) Ltd. v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 158 , while dealing with the scope of expression the High Court under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, the Companies Act ). 3. We find no substance in the plea of learned counsel for petitioner that site of the Commissionerate or appellate authority determines the jurisdiction in view of what has been stated in the aforesaid decision. 4. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the inevitable conclusion is that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
-
2001 (3) TMI 112 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... lometers away from the coast does not mean that they were not seized from near the coast. What is near would depend in each individual case upon its facts and we are satisfied that the provisions of Section 113(C) of the Customs Act are attracted to the facts of this case. 2. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 111 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... to nil rate of duty, as claimed by the Revenue in terms of Section 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Modvat credit is admissible on such articles which go into the final product ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not considering the issue whether seats manufactured by Bharat Seats Limited were steel seats or not ? The petition stands disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 110 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... al case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature and this involves complicated question of law, it is desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case. But, this proposition would reflect the situation where the departmental proceedings is sought to be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case. 8.As pointed out by the Supreme Court in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 375 (S.C.) (supra), the confiscation proceedings or the appeal against the order of confiscation has got nothing to do with the criminal prosecution. 9.Moreover, it is not established that the materials and evidence to be adduced by the Department before the Tribunal and the prosecution before the criminal Court are one and the same. 10.Under those circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 9454 of 1999 is closed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund - Limitation - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... xcise duty paid by the petitioner, is definitely hit by the limitation of six months given under Section 11B of the said Act, however, the claim to which he was otherwise legally entitled to as permissible under that provision of six months, the same is no doubt refunded to him. 14.After having gone through the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, we find that a well reasoned order has been passed and the petitioner himself was liable to be blamed for having lost the opportunity of getting the refund of excise duty paid by him. We do not find any wrong in the order passed by the authority below. The order deserves to be maintained and even on the ground or alternate remedy, we feel that it is an appropriate case wherein the petition also can be dismissed on that ground. 15.In the result, petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 108 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Provisional assessment (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... ed Senior Counsel with Shri B. Pandya, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri B.G. Neema, learned Counsel for respondents. 5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that apart from legal submissions, even if the impugned order is modified, the petitioners may be called upon to furnish Bank Guarantee for a lesser amount. 6.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the issue, in my opinion, the impugned order referred supra, deserves to be modified to the extent that petitioner will furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- and for balance execute a Bond. Let this be done within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. It is also directed that proceedings for final assessment which are pending in respect of the matter in question be also disposed of within a period of six months to enable the parties to work out their final liability of duty on the goods. 7.With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 107 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
EXIM - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... hat in insisting upon the so-called valid Advance Import Licences, the concerned authorities were clearly overstepping their Jurisdiction. 9.In our opinion, the learned single Judge was also right in holding that the nexus need not be established because the question of nexus would arise only when the obligation of the exporter exists and the petitioner, as purchaser of the licences, after the discharge of the obligation of export, is not required to establish the nexus. The Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bussa Overseas case, cited supra, applies on all fours to the present case. We are in respectful agreement with the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court. In that view, the appeals are dismissed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is confirmed. The authorities shall now proceed to make the assessment orders ignoring the questioned endorsements and in the light of the observations made in both the judgments of the High Court. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... for the delay in clearing the consignment. It was due to the strike carried on by the trailer workmen, who were the employees of an independent contractor. It appears that the dispute between an independent employer and employees has resulted in the delay. Even under those circumstances, to fasten the responsibility on the respondent, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Judge, the appellants had not let in any evidence to show that that they had arranged for vehicles to carry away the loads and such vehicles were obstructed by the striking workers. It is evident that the goods were kept in the transit sheds. It invites the payment of demurrage after exclusion of the three free days alone. I do not find any error apparent in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Judge. Accordingly, the instant Appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the judgment and decree delivered by the learned Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S. No. 2727 of 1981.
-
2001 (3) TMI 105 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Reference to High Court - Customs - Import trade control ... ... ... ... ..... ration the remaining factors particularly the fact that this is not a case where the assessee had no licence and consequently that there is good ground to assume the penalty is highly technical insofar as it covers non-possession of the particular type of import licence only, we do consider that a very nominal redemption fine would meet the ends of justice. In modification of the earlier orders it is directed that the redemption fine shall be modified from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 75,000/-. 7.It is necessary for us to direct that the grievance of the importers is a real one insofar as with the passage of time the deterioration only keeps on multiplying. Consequently, the authorities concerned are directed to release the goods forthwith on the importers paying the penalties as prescribed in this order. A copy of this order to be furnished to the petitioner forthwith. 8.In view of what has been held by us, the reference is answered in favour of the revenue and against the petitioner.
-
2001 (3) TMI 104 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Prosecution - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ssessment as to how far it will be safe and in the interest of justice regard being had to the nature of the offence alleged to set the accused free on purely technical grounds. 10.In any view of the matter, in the present case the proposed discharge of the accused persons under Section 245(3) Cr.P.C. will be unwarranted and unjustified and the Court below did not commit any error by refusing to allow their petition under Section 245(3) of the code. Accordingly the impugned order is upheld and the Revision application is dismissed. The ld. Trial Judge is hereby directed to proceed forthwith with the trial of this case if possible on day to day basis and to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of communication of this judgment. 11.Let the Lower Court Records be sent down to the Court below at once per Special Messenger whose costs shall be borne by the O.P. and it shall be deposited by the 3rd April. 2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 103 - SC ORDER
Chill moulds ... ... ... ... ..... are an essential part of the centrifugal casting machine is based only upon the technical data and the respondent s memo of appeal and it has not referred to or dealt with what has been found to the contrary by the authorities below. 2. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed, the order under challenge is set aside and the appeal (Appeals/SP/MA/CO No. C-246/93) is remanded to the file of the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal for being heard and disposed of afresh. 3. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... clined to condone the delay, taking the view that the judgment of this Court in Ajit Singh Thakur and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1981) 1 SCC 495 was applicable and that it could not look into the nature of the grounds of appeal. 6.The Tribunal would appear to have lost sight of the cardinal principle which is enshrined in Section 17 of the Limitation Act that fraud nullifies everything. If the Tribunal was satisfied, as it ought to have been upon these facts, that there might be some fraud, there was every reason for it to condone the delay and to hear the appeal. The judgment in Ajit Singh Thakur s case has no application to facts such as these. 7.The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The Tribunal shall now hear the appeal on merits. In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal will be guided purely by the merits of the case on either side and not be influenced by its earlier order. 8.No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 100 - SC ORDER
Project import ... ... ... ... ..... not as a project import. It is only after the first show cause notice in respect of a part of the import was issued that a certificate was obtained from the Directorate General of Technical Development which approved of the project import. It is clear that, in the circumstances, the requirements of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 have not been met. 2. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. 3. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Stay of recovery ... ... ... ... ..... tioner has not made out a case for grant of stay during pendency of the reference application. It appears that Tribunal s order is dated 7-12-2000. On 13-2-2001, notice has been issued to the respondent in the reference application. The only question which remains to be seen is whether there should be stay of recovery during pendency of the reference application. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Bansi Dhar and Sons, 1986 (24) E.L.T. (193), application for stay, if any, has to be considered by Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the application for stay has been filed and the matter is listed on 29-3-2001. Though there is no order of stay operating, it would be fair and proper if no coercive action is taken till the Tribunal takes up the matter on 29-3-2001. 2. We make it clear that by giving protection for six days, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the application which is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. 3. The petition is disposed of.
............
|
