Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1992 1992 (7) 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 61 to 80 of 280 Records

• 1992 (7) TMI 299
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 5(3-B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
  2. Correctness of declarations filed by the respondent.
  3. Application of penalty under section 5(3-B) for filing wrong returns.
  4. Discrepancy in treatment of goods by the respondent.
  5. Assessment of liability under section 5(3-B) based on declared purpose of goods purchased.
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of Karnataka dealt with a revision petition where the State sought revision of an order by the Appellate Tribunal absolving a dealer from penalty under section 5(3-B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The case involved the respondent, a dealer in synthetic resin, who purchased formaldehyde and declared its use in the manufacture of synthetic resin. The State contended that the respondent falsely treated synthetic resin as non-scheduled goods in tax returns, contradicting the declarations made during purchase. The assessing authority imposed penalties under section 5(3-B), which the respondent challenged. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 5(3-A) and 5(3-B) regarding declarations and penalties for misuse of goods purchased for specific purposes.
  
  The Court observed that the respondent consistently declared formaldehyde for use in manufacturing synthetic resin, benefiting the seller under section 5(3-A). However, the respondent treated synthetic resin as non-scheduled goods in tax returns, leading to the State alleging false declarations. The assessing authority imposed penalties under section 5(3-B, which the respondent contested, arguing that penalties should not apply for filing wrong returns but for actual misuse of goods. The Court emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of penal provisions and clarified that penalties under section 5(3-B apply when goods are not used for the declared purpose, not for incorrect returns.
  
  The first appellate authority upheld the penalties, stating that the respondent misused goods purchased against declaration, leading to reduced tax burdens. However, the Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, considering synthetic resin as a chemical covered by the Second Schedule. The Court highlighted that section 5(3-B) penalizes failure to use purchased goods for declared purposes, not for discrepancies in tax treatment of end-products. It emphasized that penal provisions must be strictly construed and cannot be stretched to include unintended scenarios. The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Tribunal's decision that penalties under section 5(3-B) were not applicable in the case, as the respondent had used formaldehyde for the declared purpose of manufacturing synthetic resin.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the scope and application of penalties under section 5(3-B) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of strict interpretation and adherence to the language of taxing statutes in penalty proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, highlighting that penalties under section 5(3-B apply when purchased goods are not used for the declared purpose, not for discrepancies in tax treatment of end-products.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 298
  
  Issues:
  1. Validity of clarification issued by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding pawn brokers' liability to pay tax on the sale of unredeemed goods.
  2. Interpretation of Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 in relation to sales tax liability of pawn brokers.
  3. Whether pawn brokers are considered dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  4. Determining the legal status of pawn brokers in selling unredeemed pledged goods and their tax liability.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The judgment addresses the challenge to the validity of a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes regarding the tax liability of pawn brokers on the sale of unredeemed goods through auction. The petitioners, Karnataka Pawn Brokers' Association and a pawn broker firm, contest the imposition of tax based on the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, arguing that the sale of pledged articles is controlled by the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961. They assert that pawn brokers act as bailees, not owners or agents, when selling unredeemed goods, and therefore, should not be subject to sales tax under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  
  2. The judgment delves into the legal provisions of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, the Indian Contract Act, and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act to determine the nature of transactions involving pawn brokers. It references Section 176 of the Contract Act, which grants pawnees the right to sell pledged goods in case of default by the pawner. The judgment cites precedents from various High Courts elucidating that the sale of pledged goods by pawn brokers is an exercise of statutory power, not as agents, and the sale proceeds belong to the pawner. The court emphasizes that the right to sell pledged goods carries the incident of sale, making pawn brokers subject to sales tax as dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  
  3. The judgment further clarifies that any transaction ancillary to the main business of a pawn broker, such as selling unredeemed goods, falls within the definition of business under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. It references previous court decisions to support the interpretation that activities incidental to business operations make an entity a dealer for tax purposes. The court rejects the argument that pawn brokers are not owners of the goods or acting as agents, emphasizing that even statutory sales are encompassed under sales tax laws. Consequently, the court dismisses the petitions challenging the tax liability of pawn brokers and upholds their classification as dealers liable to pay taxes under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
  
  4. In conclusion, the court dismisses the writ petitions, affirming the tax liability of pawn brokers on the sale of unredeemed pledged goods and upholding their classification as dealers under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The judgment underscores that the sale of pledged goods by pawn brokers, even if statutory in nature, falls within the purview of sales tax laws, emphasizing the broad interpretation of business activities under the Act.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 297
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the detention order under COFEPOSA.
  2. Competence of SAFEMA authorities to review COFEPOSA detention orders.
  3. Validity of the declaration under section 12A of COFEPOSA.
  4. Validity of property transactions and transfers.
  5. Application of section 11 of SAFEMA concerning property transfers.
  6. Locus standi of appellants Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of the Detention Order under COFEPOSA:
  The appellant's counsel argued that the detention order against Pala Singh was legally defective because the grounds for detention were not recorded before issuing the order on December 18, 1975. The tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the SAFEMA authorities are not competent to examine the legality of a COFEPOSA detention order. The SAFEMA applies to individuals detained under COFEPOSA unless a competent court sets aside the detention order, which was not the case here.
  
  2. Competence of SAFEMA Authorities to Review COFEPOSA Detention Orders:
  The tribunal clarified that SAFEMA authorities do not have the jurisdiction to set aside or question the legality of detention orders issued under COFEPOSA. The SAFEMA authorities must recognize detention orders until a competent court sets them aside. Since no court had set aside the detention order against Pala Singh, he remained an affected person under SAFEMA, and his wife, Lajwanti, was also considered an affected person.
  
  3. Validity of the Declaration under Section 12A of COFEPOSA:
  The appellant argued that the declaration under section 12A of COFEPOSA was not mentioned in the "reasons recorded" by the competent authority under section 6(1) of SAFEMA, making it inapplicable. The tribunal rejected this contention, stating that the omission of the declaration in the "reasons to believe" does not invalidate its applicability in SAFEMA proceedings. The tribunal also dismissed the argument that the declaration under section 12A was rendered infructuous due to non-reconsideration within four months, stating that the declaration continues until specifically revoked.
  
  4. Validity of Property Transactions and Transfers:
  The tribunal scrutinized the evidence regarding the purchase and sale of the disputed property. It found no credible evidence supporting the alleged purchase of a house in Kailash Nagar by Pala Singh or its sale to Kirpal Singh. The tribunal concluded that the legal source of the funds used to purchase the disputed house was not proven. Additionally, the sale of the house by Lajwanti to Jaswant Singh and subsequently by Jaswant Singh to Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari was deemed invalid due to the lack of registered sale deeds.
  
  5. Application of Section 11 of SAFEMA Concerning Property Transfers:
  Section 11 of SAFEMA stipulates that any property transfer after issuing a notice under section 6 or section 10 shall be deemed null and void if the property is subsequently forfeited to the Central Government. Since the notice under section 6 was issued in 1976, and the transfers to Jaswant Singh and then to Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari occurred in 1977 and 1981, respectively, these transfers were nullified under section 11.
  
  6. Locus Standi of Appellants Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari:
  The tribunal concluded that Rama Devi and Pawan Kumari had no legal interest in the disputed property as the transfers were invalid. Consequently, they lacked the locus standi to file the appeal F. P. A. No. 21/(DLI) of 1992, leading to its dismissal.
  
  Conclusion:
  Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the forfeiture of the property to the Central Government under section 7 of SAFEMA. The tribunal upheld the competent authority's findings regarding the illegitimacy of the property transactions and the applicability of SAFEMA provisions.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 295
  

  Arbitration application - Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As only in cases where the agreement does not specify the arbitrator and the parties cannot also agree upon an arbitrator, does the court get the jurisdiction to appointment an arbitrator. It must, accordingly, be said that in the present case, there was no occasion or warrant for the learned Subordinate Judge to call upon the parties to submit panels of arbitrators. He was bound to refer the dispute only to the arbitrator named and specified in the agreement. This aspect, however, has become academic now in view of the fact that the very application under Section 20 has been held by us to be barred by limitation.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 294
  
  Issues:
  - Duty evasion and confiscation of fabrics
  - Burden of proof on the Department
  - Compliance with Rule 174A and notification No. 305/77
  - Role of processing houses in duty payment
  
  Analysis:
  
  The case involved appeals against an order by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara, regarding duty evasion and confiscation of fabrics. The appellants purchased grey fabrics and had them processed by various processing houses. During a search at the appellants' shop premises, discrepancies in stock and duty payment documents were noted, leading to a duty demand and confiscation order. Penalties were imposed on the appellants. The main contention raised by the appellants was that the burden to prove duty evasion rested on the Department, and no investigations were conducted at the processing houses to establish the alleged evasion. The appellants argued that they were traders and not required to maintain all duty payment documents. They also cited a Supreme Court decision holding processing houses responsible for duty payment.
  
  The Department, represented by the ld. SDR, argued that the appellants, by getting fabrics processed by independent processors, fell under Rule 174A and notification No. 305/77, making them manufacturers with legal obligations. The Department contended that since the appellants failed to provide evidence of duty payment for their sales, duty could be demanded from them. The SDR emphasized that as manufacturers, the appellants were responsible for ensuring duty payment on goods processed on their behalf.
  
  After considering the arguments, the Judge found that no statements were recorded from the processing houses or verification of their stock/documents was conducted. The absence of duty payment documents raised suspicion of evasion but did not constitute sufficient evidence for adjudication. The Judge noted that duty can only be demanded from manufacturers, as established in a Supreme Court decision. Since no investigations were conducted to establish duty evasion and the conditions of the notification were not shown to be violated, the Judge allowed all three appeals, setting aside the order and providing consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 292
  

  Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set- off under clause (iii) of the proviso to the explanation to rule 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, one per cent, should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods despatched by the appellants to their branches, but only on that part of the sale price of the goods sold outside the State which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the appellants were claiming set-off?

  Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of reducing set- off under clause (iii) of the proviso to the explanation to rule 41 and clause (y) of the proviso to the explanation to rule 41-A of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, one per cent, should be calculated not on the entire sale price of the goods despatched by the appellants to their branches, but only on the part of the sale price of the goods sold outside the State which is attributable to the locally purchased raw material on which the appellants were claiming set-off?

  Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Failure to understand how a valid grievance can be made in respect of such deduction when the very extension of the benefit of set-off is itself a boon or a concession. It was open to the rule-making authority to provide for a small abridgement or curtailment while extending a concession. Viewed from this angle, the argument that providing for such deduction amounts to levy of tax either on purchases of raw material effected outside the State or on sale of manufactured goods effected outside the State of Maharashtra appears to be beside the point and is unacceptable. So is the argument about apportioning the sale price with reference to the proportion in which raw material was purchased within and outside the State.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 284
  
  Issues:
  1. Share qualifications of petitioners in the main application under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  2. Validity of consents given by shareholders supporting the petitioners.
  3. Authority of directors to rectify the share register without notice or recourse to legal provisions.
  4. Obligations of the company regarding cancellation of adhesive stamps on share transfer deeds.
  5. Impact of subsequent events on the validity and maintainability of the petition.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The main issue in this case revolves around the share qualifications of the petitioners initiating proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner argued that certain shareholders lacked the necessary qualifications due to irregularities in the transfer of shares, leading to the company rectifying the registration. However, the respondent contended that the petitioners had the required qualifications at the time of filing the main petition.
  
  2. Another issue raised was the validity of consents given by shareholders supporting the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that some shareholders had signed blank documents without fully understanding the purpose of the petition. However, annexure B to the petition indicated that the shareholders had been informed of and consented to the contents of the petition under sections 397 and 398 after due explanation.
  
  3. The authority of directors to rectify the share register without notice or following legal provisions was also contested. The respondent argued that directors cannot unilaterally delete names from the register without proper procedures, citing the case law of P. V. Damodaran Reddi v. Indian National Agencies Ltd to support their position.
  
  4. The obligations of the company regarding the cancellation of adhesive stamps on share transfer deeds were discussed, emphasizing that the company should have refused to register shares if stamps were not cancelled. The company's action of deregistering shares without legal recourse was deemed improper.
  
  5. Lastly, the impact of subsequent events on the validity and maintainability of the petition was considered. Referring to the case of Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corpn. Ltd v. A. Nageswara Rao, the court held that the validity of a petition is judged based on the facts at the time of presentation, and subsequent events like withdrawal of consent do not affect the petition's maintainability.
  
  In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, stating that the petitioners were not entitled to the order sought. The costs were directed to be in the cause, concluding the judgment.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 277
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deadlock in the affairs of the company.
  2. Total liability exceeding the assets.
  3. Petition for winding up the company.
  4. Sale of the company's assets before winding up order.
  5. Jurisdiction and inherent powers of the court under the Companies Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Deadlock in the Affairs of the Company:
  The petitioners filed for the winding up of the company, citing a deadlock in the company's affairs. It was contended that the company was not conducting any business and had significant liabilities. The second respondent, a shareholder and director, admitted the company's financial distress but denied the deadlock allegations. The court found that there was indeed a deadlock, as the petitioner and the second respondent were not in agreement, and no business had been transacted for years.
  
  2. Total Liability Exceeding the Assets:
  The petition highlighted that the company's liabilities far exceeded its assets, with accumulated losses over Rs. 55 lakhs. Both the petitioner and the second respondent had provided personal guarantees for loans from the State Bank of India. The court acknowledged that the company's liabilities were mounting daily, with interest accruing at Rs. 4,600 per day, further exacerbating the financial situation.
  
  3. Petition for Winding Up the Company:
  The court, after hearing both parties, admitted the winding-up petition under section 433(e) of the Companies Act, noting that the respondent had not seriously objected to the winding-up. The court postponed the consideration for advertisement and further hearing, indicating the need for a resolution to the company's financial and operational deadlock.
  
  4. Sale of the Company's Assets Before Winding Up Order:
  The petitioner sought an order to sell the company's assets to a willing buyer, Mr. Jamal, to mitigate further losses and liabilities. The second respondent initially agreed but later opposed the sale, leading to further disputes. The court considered the necessity of selling the assets to prevent further financial deterioration and acknowledged that the second respondent was still open to fair negotiations for the sale.
  
  5. Jurisdiction and Inherent Powers of the Court Under the Companies Act:
  The court discussed its inherent powers under section 443(1)(c) and rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, to pass interim orders necessary for justice, even before a winding-up order is made. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the court emphasized its authority to order the sale of assets to prevent further abuse of process and to advance justice. The court rejected the second respondent's contention that such orders could not be made before a winding-up order.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that it was just and proper to order the sale of the company's assets to mitigate further losses and liabilities. The petitioner was directed to call for tenders from the public, advertise in leading newspapers, and place the tenders before the court for approval. The proceeds from the sale would be deposited in the court for payment to the State Bank of India, with the petitioner's advertisement expenses charged to the company. The court retained oversight for further steps in the sale process.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 276
  
  Issues: Share qualifications of petitioners, Validity of consent for filing the main petition, Authority of directors to rectify share register
  
  In this case, the main issue revolved around the share qualifications of the petitioners initiating proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents argued that the petitioners lacked the necessary share qualifications as the company had rectified the registration of shares transferred to respondents, removing them as shareholders due to improper transfer deed stamps. The directors unilaterally took this action without following the procedure under section 155 of the Companies Act, prompting a legal challenge by the petitioners regarding the authority of the directors to alter the share register without court intervention.
  
  The second issue pertained to the validity of the consent obtained from shareholders supporting the main petition. The petitioners contended that certain shareholders had signed blank documents without understanding the purpose, while the respondents argued that the shareholders had been informed of the petition's content and had given their consent after due consideration. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that valid consent must involve a clear understanding of the petition's allegations, relief sought, and grounds presented, highlighting the importance of informed consent in such matters.
  
  Regarding the authority of the directors to rectify the share register, the petitioners argued that the directors acted beyond their powers by unilaterally deleting names from the register without following the prescribed legal procedure. They cited legal precedents emphasizing that any alteration to the register should be done through a court application rather than by the company's internal decision-making process. The court referred to relevant case law to support the argument that the validity of a petition should be judged based on the facts at the time of its presentation, and subsequent events like withdrawal of consent should not impact the petition's maintainability.
  
  Ultimately, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought, leading to the dismissal of the application. The judgment underscored that costs would be determined as costs in the cause, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 275
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Is obtaining leave under section 446 of the Companies Act a condition precedent to filing a suit?
  2. Can such leave be granted ex post facto?
  3. Does failure to obtain leave entail dismissal of the suit?
  4. Whether the suit instituted without leave is to be regarded as ineffective until leave is granted?
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Is obtaining leave under section 446 of the Companies Act a condition precedent to filing a suit?
  The court examined whether leave under section 446 is a condition precedent for filing a suit. The statutory provisions of the Companies Act, particularly sections 446 and 456, were analyzed. The court concluded that leave under section 446 is not a condition precedent and can be granted ex post facto. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court decision in Bansidhar Shankarlal v. Mohd. Ibrahim [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 21, which stated, "failure to obtain leave before institution of the proceeding entails dismissal of the proceeding. The suit or proceeding instituted without leave of the court may, in our judgment, be regarded as ineffective until leave is obtained, but once leave is obtained the proceeding will be deemed instituted on the date of granting leave."
  
  2. Can such leave be granted ex post facto?
  The court affirmed that leave under section 446 can be granted ex post facto. The absence of express language in section 446 nullifying proceedings for non-compliance indicates legislative intent not to impose an absolute prohibition. The court highlighted that section 537 of the Act explicitly states actions without leave "shall be void," unlike section 446. The Supreme Court in Bansidhar Shankarlal supported this view, holding that leave can be granted after the initiation of proceedings and would relate back to the filing date.
  
  3. Does failure to obtain leave entail dismissal of the suit?
  The court held that failure to obtain leave does not entail the dismissal of the suit. The suit filed without leave is considered ineffective only until leave is obtained. The interpretation that leave is not a condition precedent aligns with the legislative intent and avoids nullifying suits that are otherwise within the limitation period. The court rejected the argument that non-compliance with section 446 results in an automatic dismissal, emphasizing that the bar of limitation is statutory and cannot be implied into section 446.
  
  4. Whether the suit instituted without leave is to be regarded as ineffective until leave is granted?
  The court clarified that a suit filed without leave is ineffective only concerning the official liquidator until leave is obtained. This means the suit does not affect the liquidator's ability to manage the company's assets until the court grants leave. The court rejected the interpretation that this ineffectiveness leads to dismissal due to time-bar issues, thereby ensuring that suits filed within the limitation period are not invalidated by procedural delays in obtaining leave.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned single judge was set aside. The court granted leave to continue Summary Suit No. 494 of 1985, emphasizing that obtaining leave under section 446 is not a condition precedent and can be granted ex post facto, making the suit effective from the date of filing. The court also rejected the argument that the application for leave was time-barred under article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 274
  
  Issues:
  1. Deductibility of legal charges for obtaining advice on shareholding dilution under the Income-tax Act.
  2. Applicability of section 80VV on remuneration paid to a director for professional services.
  3. Allowability of expenditure on presentation of wrist watches to employees as a business expense.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. The first issue pertains to the deductibility of legal charges paid for obtaining advice on shareholding dilution under the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal allowed the claim as a revenue expenditure under section 37, but the High Court, following the decision in Avery India Ltd. v. CIT, held that such expenditure, regardless of compliance with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, is of a capital nature and not allowable under section 37. Therefore, the first question was answered in the negative and in favor of the revenue.
  
  2. The second issue involves the applicability of section 80VV on remuneration paid to a director for professional services. The ITO disallowed a portion of the remuneration under section 80VV, but the Tribunal allowed the entire claim. The Tribunal held that section 80VV does not apply to remuneration paid for general advice in taxation matters and directed the full remuneration to be allowed as a deduction. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the remuneration was not for services falling under section 80VV, thus answering the second question in favor of the assessee.
  
  3. The final issue concerns the allowability of expenditure on presenting wrist watches to employees. The ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the claim, but the Tribunal allowed it, considering the watches as an incentive to encourage punctuality and maintain good relations with employees. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the expenditure was incurred for the business's purpose and to maintain goodwill with employees. As there was no evidence of extra-commercial consideration, the expenditure was deemed wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Therefore, the third question was answered in favor of the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court ruled on the deductibility of legal charges, applicability of section 80VV on remuneration, and the allowability of expenditure on employee gifts, providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning for each issue.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 256
  
  Issues:
  Appeal against rejection of refund claim based on unjust enrichment.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeal arose from the rejection of a refund claim by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) concerning exemptions for specified goods produced by small-scale units. The appellants challenged the rejection on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The Collector (Appeals) accepted the appellants' claim that their claim was not time-barred and that purchasing concentrates from another entity did not make them manufacturers on behalf of that entity. However, the Collector (Appeals) agreed with the original rejection, stating that since the appellants had not passed on the benefit of exemption to customers, they should not be allowed to unjustly enrich themselves by obtaining a refund. The main contention was whether a refund could be denied on the basis of unjust enrichment.
  
  The appellants argued that statutory authorities are bound by the provisions of the law and that the concept of unjust enrichment should not be applied to their case. They relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts to support their position. The counsel also highlighted that the amendment to Section 11B in 1991 should not apply to refund claims filed in 1981, as those claims had already been adjudicated upon. Additionally, the counsel referred to a Calcutta High Court decision regarding the timing of the application of the unjust enrichment bar.
  
  The Departmental Representative contended that manufacturers who had not passed on the benefit of exemption to customers should not be allowed to enrich themselves by claiming refunds. He pointed out that even refund claims filed before the amendment to Section 11B could be covered by the amended section. However, he acknowledged that the cited case law related to decisions made by High Courts in writ jurisdiction and might not directly apply to Departmental authorities.
  
  Upon consideration of the arguments, the Tribunal noted that previous decisions had held that Departmental authorities could not reject refund claims based on unjust enrichment if such conditions were not explicitly stated in the relevant section. The Tribunal cited previous cases to support this position. It was emphasized that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could only be invoked by Courts and not by authorities under the Act. As the refund claim in question was filed and disposed of in 1981, prior to the amendment to Section 11B, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal also noted that the implications of the amended Section 11B were not directly relevant to the current case and should be considered in future proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 248
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Confirmation of sale of company property.
  2. Objections to the sale process.
  3. Legal authority and duties of the official liquidator.
  4. Rights of creditors and contributories.
  5. Compliance with the Companies Act and Companies (Court) Rules.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Confirmation of Sale of Company Property:
  The core issue revolves around the confirmation of the sale of 23 acres and 66 cents of land belonging to Golden Films Pvt. Ltd. Initially, the sale was directed by a single judge to Mrs. B. Sakunthala for Rs. 22 lakhs, but she failed to pay. Subsequently, the property was ordered to be sold to the Central Warehousing Corporation for Rs. 20 lakhs, which was less than other offers. The Corporation paid Rs. 5 lakhs upfront but delayed the remaining Rs. 15 lakhs, paying it in instalments.
  
  2. Objections to the Sale Process:
  The appellant raised several objections, including:
  - Concessions shown to the Corporation by the official liquidator.
  - Arbitrary delivery of possession in parcels.
  - Payments made from the income of the property.
  The appellant cited the Supreme Court decision in *Navalkha and Sons v. Ramanya Doss* and *Amba Tannin and Pharmaceuticals v. Official Liquidator* to argue that the sale required court confirmation.
  
  3. Legal Authority and Duties of the Official Liquidator:
  The judgment emphasized that under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, the liquidator takes custody but does not own the property. Section 457 grants the liquidator powers to sell the property with court sanction. The liquidator must obtain court approval for any sale and is subject to the control of the court as per Section 457(3).
  
  4. Rights of Creditors and Contributories:
  Creditors and contributories have the right to challenge the liquidator's actions under Section 460(6) of the Companies Act. The judgment noted that the liquidator's actions without court sanction, such as delivering possession in parcels and accepting instalment payments, provided grounds for creditors and contributories to object.
  
  5. Compliance with the Companies Act and Companies (Court) Rules:
  Rule 272 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, mandates that sales by the liquidator require court confirmation. The judgment cited the Gujarat High Court decision in *Universal Dyestuff Industries Ltd., In re* to support the necessity of court confirmation for sales to ensure no irregularity or fraud occurs.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court found that the company judge erred in concluding that no confirmation was needed because the sale had been ordered by the court. This interpretation effectively negated the rights of creditors and contributories to challenge the sale. The court remitted the case for rehearing and decision on whether to confirm the sale, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal provisions and court rules. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The case was sent back to the company judge for a decision in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, but the hearing fee for the liquidator's counsel was fixed at Rs. 2,500.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 247
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 370 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding intercorporate deposits and loans; Exemption under sections 370(2)(a)(v) and 370(2)(b)(v); Compliance with section 370 requirements; Petition under section 633(2) for relief from alleged default; Premature filing of petition before initiation of prosecution; Liability of directors and company under section 633 of the Companies Act.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioners, a company engaged in investment financing, sought relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, challenging the applicability of section 370 to intercorporate deposits. They argued that their transactions, though termed as loans, were actually deposits due to a bona fide mistake and were in line with the exemption under sections 370(2)(a)(v) and 370(2)(b)(v). Legal opinions obtained before and after the 1988 amendment supported their view. The Company Law Board alleged contravention of section 370 and lack of necessary approvals for loans exceeding prescribed limits, leading to the petition for relief and interpretation of section 370.
  
  The respondents contended that the exemption did not apply to companies not solely engaged in financing industrial enterprises, raising objections to the petition's timing and jurisdiction. The court considered past precedents and the respondents' arguments but emphasized the directors' honesty, reasonableness, and lack of conscious violation of the law. It held that the directors should be excused from liability, provided they cooperate with authorities. However, the court ruled that the company itself was not entitled to the protection under section 633, dismissing the relief sought for the company.
  
  The court highlighted the distinction between loans and deposits, citing relevant case law and emphasizing the need for compliance with section 370 requirements. It rejected the respondents' argument that the petition was premature, stating that the authorities' disclosed intention to take action justified the petition's filing. The court clarified that its decision did not delve into the interpretation of section 370, as that would be more suitable for a court handling any subsequent proceedings.
  
  In conclusion, the court granted relief to the directors based on their conduct and intentions, while denying the same to the company. It underscored the importance of cooperation with authorities and the need for compliance with legal provisions, particularly regarding intercorporate transactions. The judgment provided clarity on the application of section 370 and the scope of relief under section 633 of the Companies Act, safeguarding the directors from potential liabilities arising from the alleged default.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 235
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the goods imported by the appellants are covered by the licence produced.
  2. Whether the confiscation of the goods in question is in accordance with law in view of the fact that there were past clearances of similar goods by the Customs Department.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Coverage of Imported Goods by the Licence:
  
  The primary issue to be determined was whether the goods imported by the appellants, specifically Dial Indicators, were covered under the licence that described the goods as "Special Production Aids for Electronics Industry."
  
  Upon examination, it was found that the imported goods, as per the catalogue furnished by the exporters, were precision measuring instruments used for linear measurement or comparison of linear measurements, rather than aligning tools specialized for use in the electronic industry. The expert opinion from Dr. (Mrs.) Jayasri Chaudhri, Joint Director of Electronics Commissions, NIC, Eastern Regional Cell, indicated that alignment tools for electronic industry are required for adjusting tuned circuits or synchronization of components, which was not a function of the Dial Indicators in question. Consequently, it was concluded that the imported goods were not covered by the licence produced by the appellants. Therefore, point (a) was answered in the negative.
  
  2. Legality of Confiscation in Light of Past Clearances:
  
  The second issue was whether the confiscation of the goods was lawful, considering that similar goods had been cleared by the Customs Department in the past. The appellants argued that there existed a past practice of clearing such goods, which led them to believe that their imports were legitimate. This was supported by the fact that the Customs Authorities had previously allowed the clearance of similar aligning tools, as admitted by the Adjudicating Officer.
  
  The appellants relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others v. Uday Engineering Enterprises and Others. In that case, the court held that if similar goods were released earlier due to errors by the appraisers, the importers could not be penalized for subsequent imports until the error was identified and notified. The court emphasized that the earlier releases might have misled the importers and that no penalty should be imposed without a public notice indicating that such imports would not be allowed in the future.
  
  In the present case, no such public notice was issued by the Customs Authorities. Therefore, the appellants had a bona fide belief that their imports were covered by the licence, based on past clearances. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the goods was not in accordance with law, given the absence of any notification correcting the past practice.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal held that although the goods were not covered by the licence, the confiscation was not justified due to the past practice of allowing similar imports and the lack of a public notice informing importers of any change. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the confiscation was set aside, and the appellants were entitled to consequential reliefs.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 226
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Admissibility of Modvat credit on returnable bottles.
  2. Alleged suppression of facts and wilful mis-statement.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to issue show cause notice.
  4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Admissibility of Modvat Credit on Returnable Bottles:
  The appellants, M/s. Sreeram Drinks (P) Ltd., had availed Modvat credit on bottles used for packing their product (Mango Juice) during February 1988 to May 1988. The adjudicating authority disallowed this credit, holding that the bottles were returnable and their value was not included in the assessable value of the final product. The appellants contended that the bottles were integral to the final product and not mere packaging material, thus qualifying as inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. However, the Tribunal found that the bottles were indeed packaging materials, the cost of which was not included in the assessable value, making them ineligible for Modvat credit under the Explanation Clause in Rule 57A.
  
  2. Alleged Suppression of Facts and Wilful Mis-statement:
  The appellants argued that there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement, as they had declared in their price lists that the cost of packing was not included in the product price. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellants had clearly stated in their price lists that the bottles were returnable and their cost was specified. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression or wilful mis-statement, and the extended period for recovery under Rule 57-I(1) was not applicable. The Tribunal emphasized that the normal six-month time limit should apply, as the department had sufficient information to determine the inadmissibility of the credit.
  
  3. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to Issue Show Cause Notice:
  The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to issue the show cause notice, arguing that such notices should be issued by the Collector. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that the definition of 'Collector' in the Central Excise Rules includes the Additional Collector, thus granting the Additional Collector the authority to issue the notice under Rule 57-I. The Tribunal referenced the larger Bench decision in S. Kumar v. Collector, which upheld the inclusion of Additional Collectors within the scope of 'Collector' for all purposes.
  
  4. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
  The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000 under Rule 173Q for the wrong availment of Modvat credit. The appellants contended that the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the appellants had wrongly availed the credit, which justified the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)(bb). The Tribunal noted that the penalty amount was reasonable, being approximately 10% of the wrongly availed credit, and did not warrant any reduction. The Tribunal also clarified that the penalty was correctly imposed under Rule 173Q, despite the appellants' argument for applying Rule 209A.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the reversal of Modvat credit and upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q. The Tribunal found that the appellants had wrongly availed Modvat credit on returnable bottles, but there was no suppression of facts or wilful mis-statement, limiting the recovery period to six months. The Tribunal also confirmed the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to issue the show cause notice. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 225
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Recovery of Central Excise duty on parts of storage electric batteries.
  2. Disallowance of proforma credit and imposition of penalty for alleged mis-statement and suppression of facts.
  3. Applicability of larger period for demand due to alleged wilful suppression of facts.
  
  Issue-wise Analysis:
  
  1. Recovery of Central Excise duty on parts of storage electric batteries:
  
  The appellants challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune, which confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,57,385/- for the period 25-2-1978 to 31-5-1978 on parts of storage electric batteries. These parts were used in the manufacture of electric storage batteries and allegedly cleared free of duty. The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  The appellants contended that parts of storage batteries are intermediates not sold as finished goods and hence not liable for duty. They argued that complete exemption granted to electric storage batteries should extend to their parts, as the parts have no separate entity at the time of removal from the factory. The Collector, however, held that parts of electric storage batteries are dutiable under Tariff Item 31(3) unless used for captive consumption where the end-product pays duty to avoid double taxation. The Collector granted remission of duty for the period 16-3-1976 to 24-2-1978 under Notification No. 115/83, dated 2-4-1983.
  
  2. Disallowance of proforma credit and imposition of penalty for alleged mis-statement and suppression of facts:
  
  The second order involved disallowance of proforma credit of Rs. 2,14,125/- towards basic duty and Rs. 1,693/- towards special excise duty for the period from April 1976 to May 1978. The Collector ordered the assessee to remit back the credit either by debit entry in the PLA or in cash and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- under Rule 57A(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  
  The show cause notice alleged that the assessee availed proforma credit by wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts on containers and covers used in the manufacture of electric storage batteries cleared at nil rate of duty. The assessee argued that they could not predict which parts would be used for OE fitment and contended that complete exemption should include parts of storage batteries. The Collector rejected their contention, upholding the charge of wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts.
  
  3. Applicability of larger period for demand due to alleged wilful suppression of facts:
  
  The Tribunal considered the submissions and rulings cited by the appellants, focusing on whether the larger period for demand could be invoked. The appellants argued that there was no wilful suppression, given the notifications and the acceptance of RT-12 and RG-23 returns by the department. They cited several rulings, including Standard Batteries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Amco Batteries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, where it was held that parts of batteries are dutiable and the larger period could not be invoked in the absence of wilful suppression.
  
  The Tribunal noted that the Superintendent had informed the assessee of the issue by a letter dated 29-5-1978, and thus, the assessee could not claim a bona fide belief. However, the Tribunal accepted the plea that when a Section 11C notification is issued, it indicates a general practice and a genuine misunderstanding of law, negating the charge of wilful suppression. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demands for the larger period but held the assessee liable for demands within the standard limitation period.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeals were disposed of with the modification that demands for the larger period were set aside, but the assessee was liable to pay demands within the standard limitation period. The Tribunal recognized the scope for a bona fide belief due to the issuance of Section 11C notifications, thereby negating the charge of wilful suppression of facts.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 224
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the fresh Show Cause Notice issued by the Collector.
  2. Allegations of suppression and invocation of the extended period under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  3. Jurisdiction and scope of the Collector's adjudication following the remand order by the Collector (Appeals).
  4. Limitation period for issuing the demand notice.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Fresh Show Cause Notice Issued by the Collector:
  
  The appeal challenges the issuance of a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 28-2-1991/13-3-1991 by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The appellants argued that the fresh notice was beyond the scope of the remand order by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that the remand order only directed the Collector to decide the matter after giving the appellants an opportunity to represent their viewpoints in writing and orally. The Tribunal held that the Collector was not authorized to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice and should have adjudicated based on the existing notices. The issuance of a fresh notice was deemed unnecessary and legally unsustainable.
  
  2. Allegations of Suppression and Invocation of the Extended Period Under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
  
  The Collector invoked the extended period of five years under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, alleging suppression of facts by the appellants. The appellants contended that the department was aware of the free supply of inserts by the Railways and their inclusion in the manufactured sleepers, as evidenced by the earlier Show Cause Notices issued within six months. The Tribunal noted that the department's knowledge of the facts negated the allegations of suppression. Consequently, the invocation of the extended period was not justified.
  
  3. Jurisdiction and Scope of the Collector's Adjudication Following the Remand Order by the Collector (Appeals):
  
  The Tribunal emphasized that the remand order by the Collector (Appeals) did not authorize the initiation of de novo proceedings or the issuance of a fresh Show Cause Notice. The remand order directed the Collector to adjudicate based on the existing Show Cause Notices after providing the appellants an opportunity for personal hearing and written submissions. The Tribunal held that the Collector's actions exceeded the scope of the remand order, rendering the fresh Show Cause Notice and subsequent adjudication invalid.
  
  4. Limitation Period for Issuing the Demand Notice:
  
  The appellants argued that the demand was barred by limitation, as the department was aware of the facts within the six-month period. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the allegations of suppression were not sustainable given the department's prior knowledge. The Tribunal clarified that the extended period under Section 11A(1) could not be invoked indiscriminately and must be applied within a reasonable time after detecting suppression. The Tribunal concluded that the fresh Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the permissible period, making it legally unsustainable.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal quashed the fresh Show Cause Notice dated 28-2-1991/13-3-1991 and set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The Tribunal held that the issuance of the fresh notice was beyond the scope of the remand order and legally unsustainable. The allegations of suppression were not justified, and the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) was not applicable. The Tribunal directed that the matter be adjudicated based on the existing Show Cause Notices, in compliance with the remand order by the Collector (Appeals).

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 223
  
  Issues:
  Rectification of an order passed by the Tribunal, Implementation of the order passed by the High Court, Applicability of rate of duty, Transfer of the case to the Special Bench, Binding nature of High Court orders, Power of the Tribunal to review its original order.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves an application for rectification of an order passed by the Tribunal and the implementation of the order passed by the High Court. The petitioner had appealed against orders passed by the Additional Collector, and a Stay Petition was filed. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to deposit specific amounts towards Central Excise duty and penalty and ordered the appeal to be transferred to the Special Bench. The High Court modified the Tribunal's order, reducing the deposit amounts. The petitioner claimed compliance with the High Court's directions.
  
  The main contention raised by the petitioner's advocate was that the Tribunal had erred in transferring the case to the Special Bench, as there was no dispute regarding the approved rate of duty. The advocate argued that the mistake needed rectification under relevant legal provisions. On the other hand, the JDR representing the department contended that the High Court's orders were binding, and there was no need for rectification by the Tribunal.
  
  The Tribunal deliberated on the submissions and concluded that since the High Court had passed final orders binding on all parties, there was no need for further rectification by the Tribunal. The Tribunal highlighted the observations of the High Court in the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the High Court had upheld the transfer of the case to the Special Bench and rejected the petitioner's challenge. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the High Court's orders were final and binding, precluding any rectification by the Tribunal.
  
  In light of the High Court's definitive stance on the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application as misconceived, devoid of merits, and not subject to review by the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that the High Court's order confirming the transfer to the Special Bench was binding on all parties, including the petitioner and the Tribunal, and could not be questioned further. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application.
  
  This detailed analysis of the issues involved in the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties, the significance of the High Court's orders, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the rectification application.

  ---

• 1992 (7) TMI 222
  
  Issues:
  - Appeal against order confirming confiscation of Digital Bearing Checker under Customs Act
  - Dispute over clearance under license for restricted spares or OGL Appx. 1B, Item No. 2(9) of AM. 85-88
  - Arguments regarding definition of "spares" and "capital goods" under Policy 1984-85
  - Claim for clearance under OGL entry 2(9) for bearing inspection equipment
  - Reduction of redemption fine due to appellants being actual users without profit motive
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment involves an appeal challenging the confiscation of a Digital Bearing Checker under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The appellants imported the item and claimed clearance under a license for restricted spares or under OGL Appx. 1B, Item No. 2(9) of AM. 85-88. The adjudicating authority rejected both claims, stating the license was not valid for the item and the item did not qualify as spares or capital goods under the policy. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision.
  
  The appellant's representative argued that the item should be cleared under the license for restricted spares or under OGL entry 2(9) for bearing inspection equipment. He contended that the item fell within the definition of spares and should be allowed for import. However, the Department's representative countered that the item did not meet the criteria for spares or capital goods as defined in the policy.
  
  The tribunal analyzed the submissions and policy provisions. It concluded that the item did not qualify as spares under the policy's definition and could not be imported under the license for restricted spares. Regarding the OGL claim, the tribunal found that the item did not meet the criteria for capital goods as specified in the policy. Despite arguments about the item's use for rendering services, it was deemed not to be capital goods and thus not eligible for clearance under OGL entry 2(9).
  
  However, considering that the appellants were the actual users of the item without a profit motive, the tribunal deemed the 100% redemption fine excessive. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 15,000, maintaining the authorities' order with this modification. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the import clearance dispute and the criteria for spares and capital goods under the policy, ultimately upholding the confiscation order but reducing the redemption fine based on the appellants' user status.

  ---

12345678........ 14