|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 403 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 466 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal is not correct view of law. Hence, the question No. 2 is answered in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. 8.. Now coming to the third question which relates to cylinders-whether the cylinders can be considered to be packing materials or not, suffice it to say that the cylinders are the containers for the gases and they are packing material and there cannot be two opinion in the matter. In this connection, Division Bench of this Court has already taken the view in the case of same parties Eastern Air Products v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 MPLJ 14, that cylinders are the packing materials within the inclusive definition covered by phrase empty barrels . Hence, this question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 9.. As a result of above discussion, we answer question Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of assessee and question No. 3 against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 465 - SUPREME COURT
Whether refusal was wrongful and in case it finds that the refusal was wrongful and in case it finds that the refusal was wrongful, they are at liberty to direct the authority to grant the certificate.
The Caste Scrutiny Committees for social welfare, Cultural Affairs and sports Department should comprise of Additional Commissioner (Revenue) -Chairman of the concerned Revenue Division; Divisional social Welfare officer-Member; and Research officer as a Welfare officer-Member; and Research officer as a Welfare officer-Member-Secretary to function in that behalf.
With regard to next prayer along with the vigilance cell, one Research Officer/Tribal Development or social Welfare officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers.
-
1997 (4) TMI 464 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... o the present case. The statute has specifically laid down that the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone delay not exceeding 60 days, if sufficient cause is made out. This Tribunal is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the period expressly provided under the proviso to sub-section (4), even if the principles of section 5 of the Limitation Act are applied in view of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The last decision cited by learned counsel does not advance his case any further. In the view we have taken that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the SAFEMA and that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 60 days, this application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed. We need not therefore go into the merits of the case, as admittedly, the appeal was filed long after the expiry of 60 days after receipt of the order under appeal. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal stands rejected.
-
1997 (4) TMI 463 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Pitch creosote mixture - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... e, allowed by the Apex Court in the case of the appellants herein itself. Learned Advocate has, therefore, submitted that these appeals be also allowed following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned supra. 3. emsp We have also heard the learned JDR Shri R.K. Roy. He submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above relates only to Notification No. 121/62-C.E., dated 13-6-1962, as amended by Notification No. 133/82-C.E., dated 22-4-1982 whereas in the present case Notification No. 75/84 is also involved. 4. emsp We have gone through the Notification No. 75/84 as well and we find that there is no material difference between 75/84 and the earlier Notification 121/62. Therefore, following respectfully the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1390-1393/93 in the case of the appellants itself reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) 1997 (19) RLT 478 (S.C.) we allow these appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1997 (4) TMI 462 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Service charges ... ... ... ... ..... on for such services and therefore, the same cannot be added to the assessable value of the manufactured goods. The Assistant Collector rejected his contention and confirmed the demand. The Collector (Appeals) set aside his order on the ground that service charges were collected after delivery of goods and therefore, cannot be included in the assessable value. This order is now challenged. 3. emsp The Department has no case that the extra amount was not being collected as remuneration for the services referred to above. That being so, the extra amount has no relation to the value of the goods nor it can be said that the services were paid to enrich the marketability of the product. In the circumstances, the Collector (Appeals) was justified in holding that the extra amount referred to as service charges cannot be added to the assessable value. 4. emsp We find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal. The cross-objection being merely supportive is disposed of.
-
1997 (4) TMI 461 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ntial part. Here, the matter relates to the availment of small-scale exemption primarily. By classifying the tops as part of refrigerator, the small-scale exemption had been sought to be denied to them, the exemption they were availing before the introduction of the new Tariff based on the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In this connection, we also take note of the statements of objects while introducing the Central Excise Tariff Bill, 1985 in the Parliament. We do not consider that there was any intention of denying the small-scale exemption to the manufacturers such as one before us. Further, we find that for the subsequent period the same Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had held that the manufacturers were eligible for small-scale exemption. There is nothing on record to show that this order had been revised by any superior authority. 11. emsp Taking all the facts and considerations into account we accept all these three appeals. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 460 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import of Waste paper - Mutilation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ords, while goods imported can be used as scrap or as serviceable material, it should be open to the assessee who contends that the import was only for the use as scrap, to seek mutilation so that it can be used only as scrap and not as serviceable material. Setting aside the impugned order the Tribunal directed that the entire quantity of goods imported in these cases shall be mutilated by at the cost of the assessee and at such premises as the Collector may decide. The learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Swastic Woollen Industries 1990 (47) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) . 7. emsp We have heard the submissions of both sides. We have gone through the case law cited and relied upon by the respondents. On careful consideration of the submissions made as indicated above and the case law cited in support of their submissions we do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order and therefore we uphold the same. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 459 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Memorandum/articles of association ... ... ... ... ..... ular, which does not confer any rights in law upon any one. What the appellants cannot get as a matter of right by making any claim in the court cannot be indirectly claimed by camouflaging the prayer and making it appear as though some rights are claimed against public authorities. There is no public interest also involved in the guidance sought to be espoused. The appellants have no legal right against the respondents nor do the respondents have a legal duty to oblige with the demand made and, consequently, there is no scope for seeking any relief by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the appellants have wholly misconceived their remedies in law. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss both the writ appeals. The third respondent club is at liberty to give effect to the order of suspension passed against the appellants if the same has not already been given effect to. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 457 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... nge ratio, cannot be accepted. On the overall appreciation of the scheme of amalgamation, it appears that, it is in the interest of all concerned and it cannot be said to be against the interest of all the shareholders of any of the companies or of the public in general. In view of all this, the present petitions require recognition and the scheme of amalgamation proposed thereunder requires to be sanctioned. I order accordingly. Therefore, with effect from the appointed date, the entire undertaking and all the assets, properties movable and immovable of whatsoever nature of the transferor-company shall, without any further act or deed stand transferred and vested in the transferee-company, pursuant to section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The remuneration of each of the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel and the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing in these two company petitions is quantified at Rs. 2,500 (rupees two thousand five hundred only).
-
1997 (4) TMI 453 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Antennae fabricated by appellant for ECIL ... ... ... ... ..... and angles into trusses, beams and girders would not amount to manufacture, as the inputs had not lost their original identity. This had also been followed in CCE v. Dodsal Pvt. Ltd. 1987 (28) E.L.T. 352 . The transmission towers and parts thereof fabricated by the Appellants fall in the same category. We, do not therefore agree with the findings of the Adjudicating authority below on the said issue. The same would apply to the pillars and angles fabricated by the Appellants for BHEL as they also fall within the meaning of steel structurals. As regards Antennae fabricated by the Appellants for ECIL, though it is correct that the finished product is distinct from the raw materials used, we find that the said goods come within the exemption Notification No. 74/86 inasmuch as Antennae for various uses have been specifically mentioned at serial No. 16 thereof for purposes of exemption from duty. 10. emsp In view of the above the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 452 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Classification of goods - Classification - Parts of goods relating to oilers etc. ... ... ... ... ..... ot fitted with a measuring device, liquid elevators rdquo ). Since we find that the correct classification of the two main groups of products would be under Headings 8424.00 and 8413.00 we do not think that there is need for the Assistant Collector to re-determine classification of lsquo parts rsquo of the said items. We find that the Respondents rsquo classification lists have already classified them under the residuary item 8485.90. 9. emsp In the light of the discussion above while we uphold that part of the impugned order which relates to the classification of the relevant disputed items under Headings 8424 and 8413.00 respectively, we set aside the other part relating to the direction to Asstt. Collector for re-determining the classification of their parts. We hold that the said parts will be classifiable under Heading 8485.90 as classified by the Respondent in their classification lists. 10. emsp These Appeals are accordingly rejected and disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 443 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up – Circumstances in which a company may be would up ... ... ... ... ..... he petition. Even if the allegations contained in the petition are accepted at face value, this would not amount to sufficient proof of mismanagement as to enable a petition filed under section 433(f) to succeed. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prima facie establish the ingredients of section 433(f) of the Companies Act. Even according to the petition the civil suits which have been filed, are filed against the sister concerns. None of these suits have been filed against the company against which the present petition has been filed. Furthermore, mere appointment of a receiver in the civil suits cannot lead to a conclusion that the said suits are bound to succeed. Thus this cannot be treated as a circumstance to establish the ingredients under section 433(f) of the Companies Act. Consequently I am of the view that the petition is wholly misconceived. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 438 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is nothing in either the notice or the order of the Commissioner to show that as a result of taking advances, the price was depressed, i.e., that it was lower in a case where the advance was taken compared to a case where no such advance was taken. If advance was taken in every case as is contended by the appellant, the situation could not arise at all. 3. emsp The Departmental Representative relied upon a decision of this Tribunal in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 721. In that decision it has been held that the notional interest on deposits and advances is additional value and flowing indirectly from the buyer of the goods to the assessees. However, this decision was passed on 6-2-1995 prior to the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court which was passed on 6-3-1995. 4. emsp In view of our finding we do not consider it necessary to deal with the appellant rsquo s other contention that the demand is barred by limitation. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. The impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 437 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Modvat/Cenvat - Excess duty paid on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... egarding the prayer of re-credit of amount of excess credit availed by the Bhiwadi unit in the account of the Bangalore unit, he fairly leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 6. emsp On a consideration of submissions of both the sides and noting that it is not disputed that the Bangalore unit paid duty at the rate of 20 , I do not envisage or forsee any legal objection to the appellants prayer for re-credit into the Modvat account of the Bangalore unit and direct re-credit. As far as penalty is concerned, the learned DR stated that it is not a case of technical lapse having regard to the fact that the appellants had earlier been claiming the benefit of Notification 52/93 and so it cannot be accepted that they were not aware of the existence of this Notification. Therefore, I agree with the learned DR that penalty is justified. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 425 - SUPREME COURT
REASSESSMENT — NOTICE — PERIOD OF LIMITATION — WHERE NO MATERIAL THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULL TURNOVER
-
1997 (4) TMI 419 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... ttention to the later decision of South Regional Bench of this Tribunal in Rajashree Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore which was passed on 4-11-1996. This decision has relied upon the decision on CCE v. Pharmasia Ltd. and applied the Ujagar Prints principles to biscuits manufacturers by job work and returned to the supplier of the raw material. We therefore find that it is more appropriate to rely on the decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Pharmasia Ltd. and Rajashree Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. 12. emsp We are therefore of the view that the margin of profit of the supplier of the raw materials is not to be included in the assessable value and that the basis of the assessable value principle, not the wholesale price at which the supplier of the raw material sold the goods but the value of the goods, as determined in accordance with the principle laid down in Ujagar Prints, when they leave the factory of the job worker. 13. emsp Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 418 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ble value of the final product under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Rules. However, in every case of captive consumption it has to be verified whether the cost of input declared includes the excise duty paid on inputs or not. If the declared cost does not include the duty paid on input, the same cannot be deducted again. Question number one answered accordingly. 3. emsp Heard the learned JDR for the Department, Shri Murugandy. He also conceded that the above cited decision is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. It is seen that as per the above said decision the Larger Bench had already taken a view that the duty paid on input in regard to Modvat credit which was availed by a manufacturer is not includible in the assessable value of the final product in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules. Following the above said decision, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1997 (4) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... is not liable to be punished under section 630 of the Companies Act, and the judgment of the trial magistrate is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial magistrate dated August 10, 1989, is set aside and the respondent/accused is found guilty under section 630 of the Companies Act, and convicted thereunder. This is a summons case and the punishment provided is only up to two years imprisonment and, therefore, the accused/respondent need not be questioned regarding the sentence that will be imposed on him. The accused respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and also directed to deliver possession of the official quarters bearing door No. A-40 in his wrongful possession to the appellant-company, on or before June 15, 1997, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The fine amount shall be paid by the respondent/ accused in the trial court on or before June 15, 1997, without fail. No leave.
-
1997 (4) TMI 405 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... the petitioners to take shelter under section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, till such time the findings are in their favour or it is permitted that they can take advantage of any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act that they are employees of the respondent. On this date, they cannot claim a right to continue in occupation of the property. We know from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra 1990 68 Comp Cas 324 (SC) 1989 4 SCC 514 that the object of section 630 of the Companies Act, is to provide speedy relief to the company when the property has wrongfully been withheld by an employee or ex-employee. Herein more than a decade has expired but the petitioners had not vacated the property. They cannot take shelter thus or raise any such plea that they might succeed in some litigation. No other argument was raised. For these reasons, the revision petitions are dismissed. The petitioners are given 15 days time to vacate the property.
-
1997 (4) TMI 402 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Persons resident outside India ... ... ... ... ..... e charge against the appellants could not be claimed to have been proved by any legally acceptable evidence. In the absence of any concrete materials or legally acceptable evidence, to prove the basic and essential fact that Hameed Abdul Kader was at the relevant point of time, a resident outside India, there was no scope for condemning the appellants as being guilty of the violations alleged. In the light of our conclusion, that the visiting card by itself is no sufficient proof to decide the status of the said Hameed Abdul Kader to be resident outside India at the relevant point of time, we have to come to the only conclusion that the charges of alleged violation of sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)( b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act have not been substantiated against the appellants. The orders of the authorities below, therefore, suffer from serious infirmity in law and are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
