|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 225 Records
-
1986 (12) TMI 314 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Duty of persons entitled to receive foreign exchange, Payment for exported goods ... ... ... ... ..... ontravention under section 12(2)(b) is concerned. Before parting with this case, we want to observe that the order of the adjudicating authority does not contain the list of documents relied on by the authority. Since the order is subject to appeal before the Appellate Board and a further appeal before this court, it will be necessary for a proper scrutiny of the order passed that all the documents perused and relied upon by the authority are listed with adequate description and referred to as far as possible in the order itself with indication of their serial number. We do hope that in future this requirement will be kept in mind by the concerned officers. In the result, the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority as reduced by the Appellate Board, is set aside as far as the penalty for contravention under section 12(2)(b) is concerned. The penalty levied under section 10(1)(b) as modified by the Appellate Board, is confirmed. No costs. Time for payment mdash one month.
-
1986 (12) TMI 301 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Custody of documents, etc. and Power to adjudicate ... ... ... ... ..... documents seized from a person should not be retained for a period exceeding one year unless before the expiration of the said period, adjudication proceedings are commenced under section 51, the department must obey the law and return the documents unless in the meantime it has commenced adjudication proceedings under section 51. If it is found by the department that the period of one year, which is specified in section 41, is not adequate it would be for the Legislature to amend the section in order to provide for extension of time, but so long as the section stands as it is, it must be complied with by the department. On the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, therefore, the retention of the currency seized from the petitioners by the officers of the respondents cannot be justified. Accordingly, I allow the writ petitions and direct the respondents to return the currency seized from the petitioners on or before January 20, 1987. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (12) TMI 300 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Investigation of company’s affairs in other cases ... ... ... ... ..... order has an adverse effect on the reputation and credibility of the petitioner-company and may cause grave prejudice to its affairs and may also give rise to consequences which could not be allowed to take place at the cost of the petitioner-company s interest. The Company Law Board, in its speaking order (annexure A) has also observed that several financial institutions, such as, IDBI, ICICI, IFCI, etc., have actively associated themselves with the management of the company, and are duly respresented on the board of directors and that should take adequate care of any proclivity, if any, towards mismanagement of the company. In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to strike down the impugned order at annexure A and its operative part appointing an Inspector for investigation into the affairs of the petitioner-company. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute as above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (12) TMI 299 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression of mismanagement - Powers of Government of prevent ... ... ... ... ..... section 409 of the Companies Act have been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The mere fact that applications were filed by these very plaintiffs would not be of much consequence unless the subject-matter both before this court and before the Company Law Board is substantially the same and the Company Law Board is competent to grant the relief claimed here. Since the scope of the proceedings previously instituted and pending before another court or authority is not substantially the same but rather is altogether different from the relief claimed before this court and further the other court or authority (Company Law Board in the instant case) is not competent to grant the relief claimed in this suit, the proceedings before this court cannot be stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of my above discussion, I find no force in this application and the same is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1986 (12) TMI 298 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Oppression of mismanagement - Powers of Government of prevent ... ... ... ... ..... suit is not identical with the matter which was pending before the Company Law Board and which has not been even decided by the Board much less finally and consequently the provisions of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not attracted in this suit. In order to attract section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not enough that the parties to the previous and pending proceedings are the same, rather further the subject-matter in the two proceedings should be same, similar or identical and the said subject-matter must have been finally decided between the parties and by a court or authority of competent jurisdiction. Keeping in view all these facts, it would be difficult to accept that the necessary ingredients of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been established to invoke this section by the defendants and consequently, I find no merit in this application which is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1986 (12) TMI 297 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and proceedings - Proxies ... ... ... ... ..... shareholders is joint and several and consequently all such shareholders who have been denied such right can join together as plaintiffs in one and the same suit because not only would common questions of law and fact arise, if separate suits were brought by them individually, but further also because their right to relief arises out of the same acts or transactions or a series of acts or transactions. To hold otherwise would only result in a multiplicity of suits. As the shareholders have a right to vote by proxies under section 176 of the Companies Act, the fact that all such shareholders were not present at the annual general meeting held for electing the board of directors would also be of no consequence so long as they allege to be present through their proxies. From whichever angle I consider the matter before me, I find there is no force in this application and as such this application is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500.
-
1986 (12) TMI 270 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... of the case, we consider that it is necessary, in the interest of justice that the appellants should be given a chance to establish with the help of such records as are available to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector that relief to the extent of the duty paid on the inputs is in fact due. rdquo 6. In view of this Smt. Saxena has nothing further to urge. We, therefore, hold that in the present instance also the matter has to be remitted to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the matter afresh and grant relief to the extent necessary. 7. This appeal is accordingly allowed and all the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the matter afresh and disposal in accordance with Law granting relief to the appellants to the extent they are able to establish with the help of such records as are available with them to satisfy the Assistant Collector as to the extent of duty paid on inputs.
-
1986 (12) TMI 268 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... gain adverting to the proportion in which different fibres are contained in the impugned goods, it is seen that man made fibre of non-cellulosic origin contained in the yarn in question is only 48 . Following the ratio of the decision of this Bench in the case of Gaekwar Mills Ltd. Bombay (supra) with which we wholly agree, we don rsquo t think that it can be said that in the impugned goods, man made fibre of non-cellulosic origin predominates. Therefore, the yarn in question is also not classifiable under Item 18-E of the Central Excise Tariff. 9. In the appellate orders, it has already been decided that the demand for duty is to be limited to the normal period. This view is upheld. 10. In the light of the foregoing discussions the correct classification of the impugned yarn is under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. Ordered accordingly. However, recovery will be restricted to the demand as modified per Appellate Collector rsquo s order. Appeal is allowed in these terms.
-
1986 (12) TMI 267 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Paper - Alkali resistant white map litho printing paper ... ... ... ... ..... as alkali resistant white map litho printing paper and that sub-item (2) of Item 17 carries - paper board and all other kinds of paper (including paper and paper board which have been subjected to various treatments such as coating, impregnating, corrugating, creping and design printing), not elsewhere specified and that the subject paper satisfied the description of Item No. 17(2). 7. This is an incorrect understanding. Alkali resistant paper is not a coated or impregnted or corrugated, creped or design-printed paper that it should be attracted into sub-item 17(2). It is a printing paper, not ldquo all other kinds of paper rdquo as to require assessment under sub-item (2), because it has a more definite and appropriate head under sub-item (1) as a printing paper. Its very name - map litho printing paper - proclaims it to be a printing paper and not other kinds of paper. It fits more easily into sub-item (1) as a printing paper than into item (2) as all other kinds of paper.
-
1986 (12) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... t the provisions regarding payment of duty. As earlier mentioned, the Assistant Collector came to her conclusion merely on the basis that the raw material was being supplied by the respondents and that the same was being converted into metal containers by the other two firms on the orders of the respondents. The second of the said reasons would not mean that the said two firms were acting entirely on behalf of the respondents or as their agents. So long as the contract regarding conversion out of raw material had been entered into on a principal to principal basis, the persons doing the conversion work could not be said to be dummies on behalf of the supplier of the raw material. 7. emsp We, therefore, hold that the Appellate Collector was correct in his conclusion that the respondents were not the manufacturers for purposes of levy of excise duty though the containers have been manufactured out of raw material supplied by the respondents. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1986 (12) TMI 265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Property becoming subject matter of robbery and custodia legis of Sessions Court ... ... ... ... ..... itioner would open the combination lock in the presence of the Registrar and the Registrar may permit the officers of the Gold Control department as well as the petitioner-Ratanlal to make inventory of the articles found therein. Mr. Gyani says that like the officers of the Gold Control department to whom liberty has been given the petitioner-Ratanlal may also be given liberty to apply but is not able to say for what. Consequently no liberty as such is granted to the petitioner-Ratanlal because I feel that none is required. Any application made by Ratanlal to be dealt with by the Sessions Court in accordance with law as that court is custodia legis as respect that property. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Shri Patwardhan, Advocate requests the Court for extension of time. Both the Counsel agree that the brief case may be handed over to the Registrar, Sessions Court, Bombay on 11th December 1986 at 4.00 p.m. instead at 10th December 1986 at 4.00 p.m. as ordered earlier.
-
1986 (12) TMI 256 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... n (Supra) extra hardened rice bran oil obtained through super hydrogenation was held continuing to fall under item 12 of the Central Excise and not item 13 or item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. 9. emsp In the Bombay High Court decision, hardened or hydrogenated oil having melting point of 41 deg C not fit for human consumption was held classifiable under item 12 of Central Excise Tariff and not under item 13 or 68 ibid. 10. emsp The above apart, it was also brought to our notice that the appellants had exported the entire quantity of two products to foreign countries and therefore, they would be entitled to rebate in respect of Central Excise duty paid in respect of these products. 11. emsp Following the ratio of the Five Member Bench Tribunal decision and the Bombay High Court decision, the two products are held more appropriately under Tariff item 12 VN Oil all sorts and not the residuary Tariff item 68. The appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (12) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... sting equipment found therein with the help of which assembly of electric irons could take place. We hold that the learned Collector of Central Excise was right in clubbing the clearances of both the firms. 10. emsp In Para No. 6 above we have observed that after clubbing the clearance of M/s. Sarang Products and M/s. Gaurav Products the total value of the clearances is to be taken at Rs. 7,26,832.70. The Revenue authorities are directed to demand duty accordingly after allowing the benefit in terms of exemption Notification No. 80/80-C.E. if otherwise admissible to the appellants. 11. emsp We also feel that the penalty of Rs. one lakh under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 needs to be scaled down consequent upon reduction in the quantum of duty payable in terms of the preceding paragraph. To meet the ends of justice, we reduce the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only). 12. emsp Except for the aforesaid modifications, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1986 (12) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... going to be served by remanding the matter to the lower authorities. The respondent rsquo s claim for concession with respect to additional duty was on the basis that Phenol USP grade is eligible for concession under the exemption Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 as amended. It is not of importance whether the appellant call it a drug intermediate or a drug when there is a clear finding by the Bombay High Court with respect to the same product in another case holding the same to be drug as also drug intermediate. Even though the Collector (Appeals) may have been in error in following the decision of the Tribunal, the Bombay High Court rsquo s decision changes the whole complexion of the appeals. In view of the Bombay High Court rsquo s decision we do not think that we should disturb the relief granted to the respondents by the Collector (Appeals). We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders though for different reasons as aforesaid. The appeals are thus dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Tungsten Tips ... ... ... ... ..... t read the entire explanation. Any way, the Customs Tariff Act is an independent Act and the First Schedule thereto has to be interpreted in its own rights. In the present case, it is clear that the imported tungsten tips are in the nature of raw material. There is nothing to show that they are identifiable parts of any machinery or even less to show that they are used only in ignition equipments of internal combustion engines. 7. Heading No. 85.08 deals with electrical starting and ignition equipments for internal combustion engines, etc. whereas Heading Nos. 81.01/04 specifically deals with tungsten, molybdenum, tantalum and other base metals and cermets, wrought or un-wrought and articles thereof mentioned under the sub-item of this heading and clearly covers the imported goods. In this view, we accept that the imported goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 85.01/04 (1) of Customs Tariff Act. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and order consequential relief, if any.
-
1986 (12) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Deduction of transportation cost ... ... ... ... ..... d 13-6-1977 (with which the price list was forwarded to the Assistant Collector) and to their submissions, oral as well as in the written affidavit, before the Appellate Collector. They argue that deduction of cost of transportation, whether actual or overaged, has been allowed by the Supreme Court in their judgment on Section 4 1983 E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) - Bombay Tyre International . 3. The learned representative of the department is unable to produce the relevant price list or to show otherwise that the respondents rsquo goods were in fact sold at the factory gate and not at the dealers rsquo premises. 4. In the circumstances, we are unable to sustain the revision show cause notice and hence discharge it. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1986 (12) TMI 242 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Impugned order being not been passed so, incapable to be appealed against ... ... ... ... ..... 70. M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. by their request wanted to confer jurisdiction on the Collector to quash the show cause notice, which jurisdiction, I am afraid, was not conferred on the Collector or even this Tribunal. A Collector who has been empowered to hold an enquiry into the allegations contained in the show cause notice could only record his finding whether the allegations are proved or not established. He will have no jurisdiction to hold that the show cause notice is ultra vires of the Act or the Rules. He is a creature of the statute. So also the Tribunal. Even if the allegations contained in the show cause notice are false, frivolous or baseless, the Collector cannot refuse to enquire into the allegations. Neither the Collector nor the Tribunal has been empowered to issue writs in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ. 71. After careful consideration of all aspects, I hold that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly I reject this appeal.
-
1986 (12) TMI 241 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s explained by my learned brother Mr. Harish Chander, I hold the view that in the present case there is no sufficient evidence to establish the charge of undervaluation levelled against the appellants. The Department has not produced sufficient evidence to show that the goods identical to those imported by the appellants were being ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation in the course of International trade at the price adopted by the Department. In the circumstances, the invoice price of the imported goods is to be accepted for the purpose of assessment of customs duty, particularly when there is no adequate evidence to prove that the same is not the correct price. So far as the charge of I.T.C. violation is concerned, I agree with the findings of my learned brother. In the result, the appeal success and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed before us is, therefore, allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (12) TMI 236 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... er. 24. ensp We are indeed surprised that the learned departmental representative could not show from the case records available with him any order or copy of the order signed by the Collector himself. This is a serious matter and the circumstances of the case and the way the so-called order has been passed leave an uneasy impression. We are not surprised if the appellants have felt apprehensive in these circumstances. It makes us believe that prima-facie justice does not appear to have been done. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the ease as a whole we consider that the so-called order of the Collector was not a proper order. In fact, legally speaking, it was not an order at all as it was unsigned. We, therefore, allow the appeal and remand the case to the Collector for de novo adjudication in accordance with the law with the direction to keep the above observations in mind and pass a proper order. 25. ensp The operative part of the order was announced in open court.
-
1986 (12) TMI 232 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Finding of Criminal prosecution not binding on adjudication proceeding when evidence before the two is not same.
........
|
