|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 158 Records
-
1986 (5) TMI 255 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry matters thereto on the assumption that the goods are meant to be sold within the State. The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. There will also be an order directing the respondents to release the vehicle No. BRH 3902 along with all the seized goods forthwith. The proceedings for penalty were commenced against the petitioner and penalty was levied both on Govind Traders and also on East India Transport Association under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. Those proceedings and the orders passed therein on 3rd December, 1985, are also quashed. Mr. Nathmal Himmatsinka is directed to refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 30,000 which were directed to be deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed on 22nd November, 1985. The writ petition is finally disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1986 (5) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the demand notices issued to under rule 10-A were illegal and unsustainable?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As the time- limit of three months specified in rule 10 has no applicability at all in the present case since there has been no assessment of duty before the goods were removed and it is not a case of short levy occasioned by any of the reasons specified in the said rule. The case is, therefore, covered by the provisions of rule 10-A, which is a residuary provision authorising the demand and collection of any deficiency in duty or of any other sum of any kind payable to the Central Government under the Act or the Rules without any limit of time. Hence the High Court was clearly right in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the demand notices issued to it under rule 10-A were illegal and unsustainable.
-
1986 (5) TMI 251 - SUPREME COURT
Two notifications dated January 25, 1975, issued under section 14 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 challenged - petitioners also sought a mandamus directing the State Government to grant remission in purchase tax of 0.51 paise per quintal to all the sugar factories situated in the State of U.P.
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The remission was granted only to the factories where the recovery from the sugarcane was low to enable the factories to make timely payments towards the cost of sugarcane and non-payment of the cane prices affecting the supply of cane to factories. The immediate factor affecting the economy is the recovery of sugar from sugarcane and the sugar content in the cane produced goes a long way to determine the cost of sugar. Thus the sugar factories which were purchasing sugarcane yielding low recovery are distinguishable as a class separately from those which did not fall in it and there was a reasonable basis to classify those left out of that group.
-
1986 (5) TMI 239 - SUPREME COURT
Whether assessees had actually committed the offences under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in using the goods for purposes other than the one mentioned in C form certificates?
Held that:- The appeals are allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras are set aside. The revenue is entitled to the costs of these appeals. The moment it is found that in respect of particular quantity of goods the undertaking given by the assessee in form C declaration has not been carried out, the goods were presumed to be such in respect of which no undertaking was existing. Therefore such goods would be liable to normal tax contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 8. Therefore, the penalty should be worked out only on the basis of the normal rates prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 8. That would make sense. That is a reasonably possible construction. Thus he construction put by the assessee cannot be accepted and the contention urged on behalf of the revenue in this case should be preferred.
-
1986 (5) TMI 232 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Meetings and Proceedings - Quorum for meeting, Length of notice for calling meeting, Directors - Vacation of Office By, Notice for Meeting, Directors - Power of, Director - Interested, not to participate or vote in Board’s proceedings, Oppression and mismanagement
-
1986 (5) TMI 231 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and Proceedings - Quorum for meeting, Proxies ... ... ... ... ..... d board from exercising their rights and obligations under the memorandum and articles of association of the defendant company. The plaintiff will also not suffer an irreparable injury as all the decisions of the board will be taken by adopting a regular procedure, for which the company is required to maintain the minutes of the meeting. All decisions are to be ratified before any action is taken. On the other hand, if an injunction as prayed for is granted, the business/affairs of the company will come to a stop, which will result in a colossal loss to the company as well as the shareholders. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the defendants and in allowing them to perform their duties in managing the affairs of the company. No other point has been urged nor requires going into. As a result of the above discussion, I see no force in the application. The same is hereby dismissed. Any observation made in this order will have no bearing on the merits of the case.
-
1986 (5) TMI 214 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ion stating that the contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge. The source of knowledge is not disclosed. It has been brought to my notice that a similar petition was filed by the petitioners in 1980 being C. P. No. 64 of 1980. That petition was dismissed as withdrawn on March 3, 1981. While dismissing the petition, B. N. Kirpal J. has observed in view of the fact that some technical objections have been raised by the respondents with regard to the form of the petition, counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh one . It appears that the present petition also suffers from several legal infirmities. The present petition can be treated as a valid petition only in regard to petitioner No. 1 and only in regard to the cause of action on the alleged dues on account of loan and salary. The petition be amended accordingly and the amended petition be filed. Let the petition be listed for admission on merits on July 14, 1986.
-
1986 (5) TMI 206 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Affidavit verifying petitions ... ... ... ... ..... rn in for the reason that if the amendment of a petition for winding up is allowed, it relates back to the date of its presentation. It would lead to a great deal of confusion if the appellant is allowed to swear in and supply a fresh affidavit at a late stage because rights of third parties would crop up. Manohar Narayan Joshi s case, AIR 1973 Bom. 105, was rightly distinguished by the learned single judge as it adjudicated on the question whether or not a petitioner in an election petition under the Representation of the People Act should be allowed to amend the affidavit accompanying it. An affidavit in support of an election petition is not intended to be treated as evidence of the facts stated therein because it is ultimately to be decided on the evidence recorded by the High Court. No other valid argument could be advanced before us. We therefore, find no force in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. D.S. Tewatia, J. mdash I agree.
-
1986 (5) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... due to its own negligence or lapse. In such circumstances, the order must be either partially recalled or suitably modified and corrected even on general principles of law. Apart, from section 35-C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on which Mrs. V. Zutshi, the learned Sr. D.R. has placed reliance. We are under a duty to order this correction. We order that in paras 11 and 13 of Tribunal rsquo s order (supra) the period to be excluded shall in place of 26-12-1977 to 16-3-1978 wherever they occur be read as 26-12-1977 to 6-10-1982 as prayed for by the Collector, and shall stand rectified accordingly 6. We cannot help expressing our feeling of pain and distress at the Collector rsquo s way of defending and conducting the case. If me Collector had earlier been vigilant and properly instructed the Sr. D.R. representing him in the appeals the error would not have occurred. We hope that such situations do not arise in future. The application is granted in the above terms.
-
1986 (5) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ial and elaborate processes which the imported lead-in-wires have to be subjected to before they can be ready for use in the electric lamps. In this view, they would qualify more specifically as articles of nickel. We, therefore, hold that these are covered more appropriately under the Heading 75.04/06 of the Tariff. In the circumstances, these seven appeals are also be allowed. 10. We accordingly set aside all the eight impugned orders and allow these appeals with consequential relief. 5. A simple perusal of the finding of the Tribunal reflects that the Tribunal had considered all the aspects and we are in full agreement with our learned Brothers. The stay granted by the Supreme Court has its effect on the parties to the dispute. Accordingly, we hold that the imported goods are covered more appropriately under the Heading 75.04/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The Revenue Authorities are directed to give a consequential effect.
-
1986 (5) TMI 191 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ecific than Heading 84.34 claimed in respect of this product. The classification of these goods under Chapter 37 by the lower authorities must be upheld. 19. As for the argument that no additional duty is chargeable as the goods are not manufactured or produced in India, the argument is not tenable in view of the decision in Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works Ltd. v. Union of India -1985 (20) E.L.T. 222. This argument must be rejected. 20. As for classification under Excise Tariff for quantification of additional duty of Customs, no particular arguments were advanced by either of the parties. This aspect of the classification would, therefore, call for no interference. 21. As a result, the Toyobo Printing Plates are held properly classifiable under Heading 84.34 of CTA, 1975. Their classification under Chapter 30.01/08 is set aside. Except for this modification, the orders are otherwise upheld. 22. The appeals are thus partly allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (5) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Setoff - On use of duty paid raw material ... ... ... ... ..... otification 201/79. We agree with the observations of the Madras Bench (1985 22 E.L.T. 163 Tribunal) that the term lsquo raw material rsquo has to be interpreted in the circumstances of each case in the absence of any acceptable or useful definition of the term either in the dictionary or in the technical literature. Meanings cited by the learned JDR do not help to come to a definite conclusion at this stage. Therefore, we have to take a view depending on the circumstances of this particular appeal. Guar gum serves the same purpose as resin, that is to say producing the desired strength for binding and increasing the wet strength of paper. It was in view of this fact that the Madras Bench extended the benefit of the Notification 201/79 to guar gum called by the trade name lsquo DAICOL rsquo . We see no reason to take a different view after perusing the judgment of the Madras Bench. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and therefore, dismiss the same.
-
1986 (5) TMI 185 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Gold seized from possession of a joint family carrying on joint family business ... ... ... ... ..... therein, is further corroborated by the submission made during the personal hearing before the Collector and clearly indicated that the appellants were fully and clearly responsible for violation of Section 55 of the Gold Control Act. 64. emsp That the fact Shri Mrigendra Nath Gayen and Shri Debendra Nath Gayen are no longer alive, does not in any way alter and/or effect the seriousness of the share of responsibilities of the three appellants in the eyes of law. Therefore, we consider that they have been rightly held as liable to penalty. 65. emsp However, looking into the facts and circumstances as a whole including the joint liabilities and responsibilities of these three appellants. We consider that only a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees twenty-five thousand only) each was sufficient. Accordingly, the penalty is reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand only). The order of the Collector is modified to this extent so far as penalty is concerned.
-
1986 (5) TMI 182 - HIGH COURT NEW DELHI
Valuation - In case of cum-duty price ... ... ... ... ..... subsequent, but retrospective, amendment. 43. emsp After announcement of judgment learned Councel for the petitioner, Mr. A.B. Dewan, prays for certificate of fitness for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and also seeks stay of implementation of the judgment to enable the petitioner to take steps for filing an appeal and seek directions from the Supreme Court. It is submitted that the question of validity of the amendment is involved. We may say at the outset that none of the three Councels, who argued the case before us for number of days ever adverted to the validity of the amendment. The only question argued was the nature and effect of the amended provision i.e., as to its interpretation. On interpretation we find no difficulty and we, therefore, consider that it is not a fit case for grant of certificate of fitness for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. Since no certificate of fitness is being granted, we also find no reason to stay the implementation of judgment.
-
1986 (5) TMI 178 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal not liable to dismissal for non-compliance of order ... ... ... ... ..... er hand, it is seen that Section 143 of the Customs Act provides for allowing import of the goods on execution of bonds in certain cases. The bond executed by the Appellants in the present case is one such instance Under sub-section (3) the Collector could have enforced the bond in accordance with the law and also levied the penalty. Since this has not been done, the amount ordered to be levied is not a penalty. In this view, we find that the non-compliance with the Tribunal rsquo s order dated 10-1-1986 does not render the appeal as liable to dismissal under Section 129E of the Customs Act. Accordingly, we discharge the show cause notice issued to the Appellants. The appeal of M/s. Mekaster Private Limited be listed for hearing and disposal in due course. In view of our foregoing order, we revoke our Order No. 57/86-WRB, dated 10-1-1986 on the stay application No. CSP(BOM)406/85 in CD(BOM)849/85 and leave the department free to recover the balance amount from the Appellants.
-
1986 (5) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... used for more than one purpose has for the purpose of classification to be treated as if it is for principal purpose. We have held above that the principal use of the machines imported is as stapler as office machine. The machines imported therefore fall under the Tariff heading 84.51/55. We find that the Assistant Collector has invoked interpretative Rule 3 (c) in the order. In fact, going by what has been stated there is no need to have resort to sub-rule 3(c) of the interpretative rules. In fact Rule 3(a) of the said rule is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. We therefore hold that the Collector (Appeals) order is not maintainable on facts and in law. We therefore set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and allow the appeal of the department. So far as the levy of cv duty is concerned, the .Collector (Appeals) has not given any finding. However, in view of the discussion above, levy under 33D is maintainable as upheld by the Assistant Collector.
-
1986 (5) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Ownership not turning one into a manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... s. 3,044,000.00 for utensils. For 1977-78, the total was amended to Rs. 6,055,395.58 of which patras accounted for Rs. 3,333,626.80. This yields a value of Rs. 2,722,575.00 for utensils. Since the Collector demands duty only on the utensils, we take it that the patras on sheets are not the subject for any claim by the department. The appellants themselves say the sheets are exempt and this has not been repudiated by the Collector. In any case, they would be dutiable, not under Item 68, but under item 26AA, and even if exempted, they would still be excisable goods as ruled by the hon rsquo ble New Delhi High Court in 1985 ECR 1559 Vizalandra. However, Notification No. 176/77-C.E. exempts goods falling in Item 68 and also only the utensils would be entitled to this. 15. The order of the Collector Central Excise Chandigarh No. 1/CE/81 dated 21-1-1981 is set aside. The exemption claimed by M/s. Shakti Udyog shall be redetermined in a manner compatible with the orders given above.
-
1986 (5) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... lied upon one decision of Bombay High Court reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 172. Shri Ajwani has distinguished that case from the present one. We agree with the reasoning given by him. In view of the distinction between the two cases, we cannot accept Shri Ram rsquo s argument. 18. emsp In ground No. (ix) of the Appeal Memorandum, the appellants have raised the plea of double taxation if excise duty was again levied on the C.F.Cs. and wooden boxes which were purchased by them from the market. This plea is misconceived and contrary to the provision of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. This Section provides that the cost of packing should be included in the assessable value of excisable goods. 19. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the orders of the lower authorities are sustainable in law and do not merit interference by this Tribunal. We, therefore, see no justification to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, we dismiss this appeal.
-
1986 (5) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... charged for that special sort/quality being an exceptional price. This is so for the simple reason that there is no other normal price for that sort/quality. 4. Secondly, the holding charges for the stock held by the appellants in their factory store-room are nothing but interest on working capital employed by them in their factory. It is not a charge which the customer has to pay for late payment after receiving delivery of the goods. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Leauko Plast, the cost of special checking is nothing but labour charges for ensuring that flawless quality of the fabric as stipulated in the contract is delivered to the customer. The charges in question, in both cases, are part of the total cost of manufacture. Further, these charges are incurred before delivery of the goods is effected at the factory gate. The lower authorities were, therefore, correct in holding that these charges are includible in the assessable value. 5. Accordingly, we reject this appeal.
-
1986 (5) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Customs Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... urpose, the additions towards freight and insurance in the value as has been worked out is called for. The appellants have not shown as to how this addition in terms of the basis adopted by the lower authority for filing the value is not maintainable in law. The conclusion of landing charges in the assessable value is maintainable in law seeing that the expenditure incurred for landing would become an integral component of their intrinsic value and accordingly ldquo the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold for delivery at the time and place of importation rdquo Section 14(a) of the Act or ldquo the value at which such goods or comparable goods produced or manufactured by the person who has produced or manufactured the goods to be assessed or ordinarily sold or offered for sale to other buyers in India rdquo (Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963). In view of this we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
........
|
