|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 214 Records
-
1987 (5) TMI 363 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hasten to add that in case the dispute raised is as to whether interest is not payable by a particular assessee or the provisions for payment of interest are not attracted the assessee may be relegated to the remedies open to him under the law other than filing of the appeal. Confining myself to the question raised before me that no appeal lies under section 9 of the Act against the calculation of charge of interest, I find that the orders passed by the two appellate authorities are not orders within the meaning of section 9 or section 10 of the Act and are without jurisdiction. That being so, no revision lies against the same under section 11 of the Act. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the preliminary objection taken by the learned Standing Counsel succeeds and it is held that the present revision does not lie and is incompetent under the law. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs, subject to the observations made above. Petition dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 362 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture metal containers for sale and the first sale of manufactured goods by the said industry was made on 27th April, 1978 . Therefore, the petitioner which produced metal containers for sale for the first time after 31st March, 1978 is entitled to get the benefit of the extended period under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, read with the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The impugned orders dated 12th August, 1981, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Calcutta, and order dated 2nd September, 1985 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, are quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner s application for renewal of the eligibility certificate afresh and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 361 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der these. circumstances a direction could be given to the Tribunal to refer this question. Same is the position regarding question No. 2 in both the cases. No submissions regarding the facts on which reference on question No. 2 is sought were also made before the Tribunal and they have not been dealt with by the Tribunal. As such, question No. 2 also does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Questions Nos. 3 to 6 in the two cases relate to the finding of the Tribunal that the Collector (Customs) was justified in coming to the conclusion that Dalip Singh, petitioner, was the owner of the contraband goods and that he was the person concerned in acquiring, keeping, concealing and dealing with them. This finding of the Tribunal has been arrived at on an appreciation of the material that was adduced before it and is a finding of fact. No question of law arises out of this finding of the Tribunal. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 360 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dealer may take some time in writing cash memo for various reasons, one of them may be that he may be engaged in some other work. Nonissuance of cash memo at the time when Mr. Varma visited the premises cannot be indication of any clandestine dealings. The entire enhancement is based upon the finding of purza. In our view, that was no material specially when Mr. Varma did not doubt the correctness of the stand of the assessee. In our view, therefore, finding of purza was no material for the enhancement. There was no other material for the enhancement. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the enhancement of the gross turnover by Rs. 1,50,000 was arbitrary, perverse and without material. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the department with costs payable by the Revenue to the assessee. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Patna. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1987 (5) TMI 359 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere appealable. The order, exhibit P8 is, therefore, one by which the 2nd respondent has declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law. It is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 26.. Shri T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Special Government Pleader (Taxes), raised an objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of revision to the Board of Revenue. The question involved in this case is quite a complicated one on which conflicting views have been expressed as noted above. There is no decision of this Court on this point, at any rate, none was brought to my notice. An authoritative pronouncement is called for. I, therefore, overrule this objection. The original petition is, therefore, allowed. The order, exhibit P8, is quashed. I hold that the second respondent has got jurisdiction to deal with the matter. He is directed to deal with the petitions, exhibits P5, P6 and P7, on merits, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 358 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA (FB)
Business income - Whether the proprietor of a colliery abdicating all control of its business in favour of a managing contractor by a lease for a fixed term of ten years with an option to renew by the lessor on the terms of an annual minimum guaranteed amount of Rs. 18,000 and royalty at differential rates on the quantum of coal raised and its manufacture, can still be said to be carrying on the business of the said colliery within the meaning of section 28(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
-
1987 (5) TMI 357 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Question relating to rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... cants had made reference to Notification Nos. 77/86-Cus. dated 17-2-1986 and 136/86 dated 17-2-1986 in support of their claim for classification of the goods as also exemption but these were not at all considered by the Tribunal. 3. emsp Shri Sunder Rajan relying on the Tribunal decision in Union Carbide rsquo s case (supra) submitted that the order in question raised questions relating to rate of duty and present applications were therefore, not maintainable. 4. emsp Section 130 of the Customs Act is clear that it is excluded in its application to an order relating among other things to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of Customs. Though Shri Sampath has tried to persuade us into believing that the order in question does not do so, he has not succeeded in his attempt. We find that the order comes under the exclusion clause of the provision and the present applications are therefore, not maintainable. We therefore, reject the applications.
-
1987 (5) TMI 356 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... e persistent demands, has amounted to wilful suppression of facts for the purpose of evading Central Excise duty. This position is not affected by the fact that the Department knew that the appellants had been producing Ammonium Nitrate (melt). 15. ensp In view of the above discussions, we hold that Collector has rightly invoked longer period of time-limit of five years in demanding duty evaded by the appellants. The classification of Ammonium Nitrate (melt) under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and the duty demanded in respect of Low Sulphur Heavy Petroleum Stock and Ammonia used in manufacturing Ammonium Nitrate (melt) are, thus, upheld. Considering the amount of duty involved and the manner in which the appellants deliberately evaded the payment of duty, we do not consider the amount of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs to be unjustified. Hence, the penalty is also confirmed by us. 16. ensp in the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed before us, is dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 355 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... o v. Union of India and others 1984 (18) E.L.T. 694, that once a statutory authority in exercise of a quasi-judicial power passes on order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption in terms of Section 47 of the Act, the same can only be called in question by way of appeal in terms of Section 129D, Clause (2) of the Act. 3. ensp In the present case I find that the Additional Collector of Customs has passed an order of adjudication once over in a matter that has already been adjudicated upon by the proper officer in terms of Section 47 of the Act in respect of the goods in question. Therefore, following the ratio of the Division Bench Rulings of the Delhi and Punjab and Haryana High Courts and which have been followed in the earlier rulings of the Tribunal referred to supra, I hold that the impugned orders appealed against are without jurisdiction and in this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. Sd/- (S.KALYANAM) MEMBER
-
1987 (5) TMI 354 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Benefit of doubts available to pawn broker against charge of dealing in gold without licence
-
1987 (5) TMI 353 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... reiterate the views of the lower authorities. Reliance is placed on the so-called verification undertaken by the Excise Inspector on 5th September, 1980 and the signature obtained from the representative of the appellant factory. The Bench is of the view that the signing of a document prepared by the Inspector in token of his checks can only be considered an evidence of the fact that the factory representative was present and not any admission of allegation subsequently made as a result of such checks. 7. In the light of the foregoing discussions it is considered more reasonable to accept the appellants contention that the so-called excess quantities of molasses were made up of huge quantities of water which had got mixed up with molasses. On the facts of the case neither the demand of the duty nor the imposition of penalty is justified. 8. Merits apart the demand of duty would even otherwise be barred by limitation. 9. Orders of the lower authority set aside. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 352 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund - Reference date for commencement of limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rued to be from the date of assessment of R.T. 12 is not tenable and the issue is no longer res integra and is coveredy the ratio of the ruling of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of lsquo Siemens India Ltd. and Rane Co. v. Collector of Central Excise rsquo , reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 821 , wherein it has been held that under the Self removal Procedure the payment of duty by debit in the Personal Ledger Account follows the self-determination of the duty due on the goods by the assessee and such payment being a condition precedent to removal of the goods, the duty paid by the assessee on his determination is non-the-less payment of duty on the goods for the purpose of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. I respectfully adopt the ratio of the aforesaid ruling and hold that the refund claim in the present case is barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Act. In this view of the matter, I uphold the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeal.
-
1987 (5) TMI 351 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Sliding Storage System ... ... ... ... ..... case reported in 1969 (23) STC 29. 9. emsp Shri Hathi further relies on the letter dated 25-3-68 of the Ministry of Finance ( No. B2/2/68 CX) the extract thereof being furnished by him. He points out that the Ministry had clarified that specially designed manufactures of steel like counters, storage cabin, cat walks, etc., used in the industrial establishment cannot be held to be steel furniture. His reliance thereon is to the clarification regarding storage cabins. He states that by the same reasoning the subject goods would not be furniture. We have already seen that so far as racks are concerned the Gujarat High Court has held them as steel furniture. The reference in the Ministry rsquo s letter is evidently to storage cabins erected, at site and in the nature of fixed rooms for storage. 10. emsp In view of the above discussion we hold that the lower authorities correctly classified the product in question under Tariff Item No. 40 CET. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 350 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of Notification No. 55/75-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... tness of this view and submitted that he reserved his right to agitate against the decision before the higher forum if necessary. He, however, did not dispute that the notification on the strength of which the respondents had claimed refund is a Central Excise Notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. There would appear no reason in this case to depart from the ratio of the decision in Motiram Tola Ram rsquo s case (supra). Following the same it is held that the respondents could not lay claim for refund of additional duty on the strength of exemption notification issued under Rule 8(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The impugned order therefore could not be sustained. As a result the appeals are allowed, the impugned order set aside and the respondents claim for refund dismissed. 4. emsp The cross-objection filed in the appeal is in the nature of comments to the grounds of appeal and no orders on the same are necessary. It is ordered to be dismissed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Annual Return - Penalty for not filing, Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... h v. Registrar of Companies, West Bengal 1985 58 Comp. Cas. 672. Similar penalty being provided for the non-fulfilment of the requirement of section 220 of the Act in section 162, the failure to file balance-sheet and accounts was not considered to be a continuing offence on the same reasoning as in Central Manbhum Coal Co. P. Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal 1986 59 Comp. Cas. 176 (Cal.). Agreeing with the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of National Cotton Mills 1984 56 Comp. Cas. 222 , I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned respondent s counsel that the petitioners had committed continuing offences. Since the offences were not continuing ones, the cognizance thereof after the expiry of the period of limitation provided in section 468 of the Code of Criminal procedure could not be taken by the trial Magistrate. Hence, the impugned complaints and the proceedings taken by the trial court are hereby quashed.
-
1987 (5) TMI 341 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Director - Disclosure of interest by ... ... ... ... ..... director from having any interest in any contract with the company and because of the same, a contract entered into with the company was held to be unenforceable by such a director. The Companies Act applicable in India, on the other hand, does not contain any provision prohibiting a director from being interested in any contract with the company. The only duty cast upon him by the provisions of section 299 is to disclose the nature of his interest in the proposed contract at a meeting of the board of directors. The failure on his part to make such a disclosure, though it has been made punishable, does not have the effect of rendering the contract void or unenforceable. So, the impugned contract cannot be said to be void and unenforceable on the basis of any observation made in Kaye s case (supra). No case, consequently, has been made out for interference with the order of the trial court and this petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (5) TMI 340 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Shares warrants and entries in register of members, Compromise and arrangement, Winding up - Powers of liquidator
-
1987 (5) TMI 339 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and proceedings - Proxies ... ... ... ... ..... he trial or even an ancillary proceeding in the suit. The issue of certified copies does not adversely affect any right of the company who is the appellant before us. The company should, on the contrary, assist in the ascertaining and determining by the court whether the election to the board of directors is legal and valid or not. We cannot comprehend even remote prejudice to the company by the impugned order. Applying the ratio of Shah Babulal s case, AIR 1981 SC 1786, that every order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned, we find that the order under appeal cannot be treated as a judgment within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act. We leave the other question open for decision in an appropriate case. The appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (5) TMI 338 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of ... ... ... ... ..... the directors. There is no evidence that the complainant had made any verification with reference to any other record as to whether the petitioner was one of the directors of the company. Thus, there was absence of proof to indicate that the petitioner was one of the directors of the company. Relying on the principle laid down by the Calcutta High Court in Ajit Kumar Sarkar v. Assistant Registrar of Companies 1979 49 Comp. Cas. 909, Mr. Pasayat has contended for the petitioner that there was no specific averment in the complaint that the present petitioner was the officer in default and, therefore, the prosecution is not competent. As has been submitted at the Bar, there is no such averment in the petition of complaint and there is no evidence to that effect. The petitioner cannot legally be held to be liable for the alleged default. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed and the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside.
-
1987 (5) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the word "whoever" in sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957, denoted only a natural person and an association of persons, such as a firm, would not fall within the connotation of the word "whoever"?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The initiation of adjudication proceedings for failure to repatriate foreign exchange on shipments of manganese ore prior to September 20, 1957, the date when the Amendment Act came into force, was permissible.
........
|
