|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 283 Records
-
1989 (2) TMI 124 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Exemption to SSI Units ... ... ... ... ..... ses Act 3. Although this notification was issued on 25th 8194 March, 1986 but it having allowed exemption to clearances up to Rs. 20 lakhs between 1st day of April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986 it applied retrospectively and results in rescinding of Notification No. 175/85 to the extent it was in conflict with it. Therefore, exemption was available to the petitioner on its clearance up to Rs. 20 lakhs between 1st March, 1986 to 24th March, 1986 irrespective of Notification No. 175/86. The restrictive meaning given to the notification because of Notification No. 202 of 1986 being contrary to explicit words used in the notification has to be rejected. 4. In the circumstances this petition succeeds and 8194 is allowed. The order of the Assistant Collector dated 29th April, 1988 is quashed. He is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of what has been stated above. Other disputes shall be open to the petitioner to be raised before him. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 123 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Import from Bangladesh - Estoppel - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted that this introduction of BTPA was against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as when goods imported from Pakistan is entitled to exemption then why should not the goods imported from Bangladesh get the similar exemption. We are, with due respect to Mr. Chakravorty, unable to accept such submission of the learned lawyer. Mr. Chakravorty has extended the scope of the writ petition originally filed by his client to a great extent while making his submission on behalf of the appellant. 5. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that there is an appeal already preferred by the writ petitioner which is pending before the appellate authority. Under these circumstances this Court is of the view that the court below has rightly refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In that view of the matter we are of the view that this appeal must be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Mahitosh Majumdar, J I agree.
-
1989 (2) TMI 122 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Writ jurisdiction - Denial of opportunity of hearing - Collector issuing show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... tled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without availing the statutory remedies under Act. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.No. 6439/1984 is set aside and the order of the Collector of Customs, Ext. P14 is quashed. The appellant is given two weeks time to file his written statement before the Collector of Customs from this date. After taking into consideration the said written statement and fixing a date of hearing, the Collector of Customs shall proceed to dispose of the matter without being influenced in any manner by the view which he had already taken in the order Ext. P. 14 quashed by us. If the appellant does not file a written statement within the specified time, the Collector shall fix a date of hearing and proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of the available material without any further opportunity to the appellant of producing any material in support of his case.
-
1989 (2) TMI 121 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ - Territorial jurisdiction - Interpretation of Statute - Ejusdem generis rule ... ... ... ... ..... to be had to the sale prices charged by different classes of producers or manufacturers. Therefore, I find that to attract excise duty the disputed parts in question must have a market value which is wholly absent in the present case. 17. Lastly, I find that sitting singly I am also bound by the aforesaid decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (supra). I also, with profound respect and for the reason stated above, find myself unable to agree with the reasoning contained in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anil Ice Factory and another (supra). Thus it has to be held that the petitioners are not liable to pay any excise duty on the items in dispute. 18. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned orders passed by both the authorities below levying excise duty on the petitioners on the aforesaid parts of appliances and machinery are hereby quashed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 120 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Prosecution - Words and phrases - Trial proceedings - Connotation of ... ... ... ... ..... art of the trial vide Madhub Chunder Mozumdar v. Novodeep Chunder Pundit - ILR (Vol. XVI) 1989 Calcutta 121 . 5. For the aforesaid reasons I cannot accept the contention that hearing arguments in the case would not form part of the trial. Hence the lower court noted without jurisdiction in hearing arguments and pronouncing the judgment. Accordingly, I quash all the steps taken by the lower court from 29-11-1984 onwards in this case. The case is remitted to the special court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate s Court, Ernakulam) for Economic Offences where the case will proceed from the stage when it ended on 22-11-1984 (the previous posting date immediately prior to 29-11-1984). I direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate s Court, Ernakulam (for Economic Offences) to dispose of the case in accordance with law and subject to the above observations. As this is an old case, expeditious disposal is also expected. The appeal and the Crl. R.C. are disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ jurisdiction - Breach of contract - Customs - Wreck ... ... ... ... ..... ontentions raised on behalf of the Petitioners fail. 12. We accordingly discharge this Rule with costs. 13. The bond furnished by the Petitioners will remain until the payment of the additional duty for which two months time is given. Since no direction was given in the interim order regarding payment, if any, of interest upon the unpaid additional duty, we are not inclined to consider the prayer now made for payment of the interest for the past period. We, however, direct in the facts of this case payment of interest at the rate of 10 per cent upon the unpaid additional duty with effect from this day. 14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays for certificate to file an Appeal in the Supreme Court. We reject the said prayer. We make it clear that the question whether interest is to be awarded upon unpaid additional duty in case a rule is discharged must depend on the facts of each case and we find the present case to be one such in which interest ought to be awarded.
-
1989 (2) TMI 118 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Cotton fabrics - Factory - Definition of expression ... ... ... ... ..... se factors taken singularly and cumulatively unmistakably establish that setting up of the two units is nothing but an attempt to claim that the two units are separate and are entitled to the advantage of the two exemption notifications. The conclusion of the Collector that the two units are one and the same and the mere preparation of record to indicate that the two units are separate and distinct cannot be accepted, nor can lead to the conclusion that separate processes are carried out in two separate factories is correct. In our judgment, on the strength of the findings recorded by the Collector, the conclusion that the units should apply for a fresh licence or amendment of the licence as required under Rule 174 cannot be faulted with. The order of the Collector does not suffer from any infirmity and the petitions must fail. 9. Accordingly, rule in each of the petition stands discharged with costs. Shri Kantawala applies for continuation of interim relief. Prayer refused.
-
1989 (2) TMI 117 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Catheters - Life saving equipments ... ... ... ... ..... ents. It is not a normal commercial article. On the basis of a mere revised opinion, the Collector cannot take a view which is clean contrary to the legal opinion given by the CEGAT. 7. If there is any other way of getting the CEGAT review its order, the Customs Authorities may follow the same. If the department is aggrieved by the exemption which is held to be available by the CEGAT, action for excluding Foley Balloon Catheters from the exemption may be taken. At present, however, one must proceed on the basis that the view of the CEGAT, which is binding upon all the authorities below it, is in the field. Hence, rule in each of these two petitions, returnable on 19th of June 1989. Mr. Sethna waives service of notice. By way of interim relief, it is directed that the petitioners are allowed to clear goods covered by Bills of Entry in respect of Foley Balloon Catheters by furnishing I.T.C. bonds for full C.I.F. value and P.D. bonds without bank guarantee for the customs duty.
-
1989 (2) TMI 116 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the demand raised for a period beyond 6 months was not maintainable.?
Held that:- The Tribunal found that the explanation was plausible, and also noted that the Department had full knowledge of the facts about manufacture of all the goods manufactured by the respondent when the declaration was filed by the respondent. The respondent did not include the value of the product other than those falling under Tariff Item 14E manufactured by the respondent and this was in the knowledge, according to the Tribunal, of the authorities. These findings of the Tribunal have not been challenged before us or before the Tribunal itself as being based on no evidence.
In that view of the matter and in view of the requirements of Section 11A of the Act, the claim had to be limited for a period of six months as the Tribunal did. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its conclusion. The appeal therefore fails
-
1989 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a revision shall lie to the High Court from the decision of the Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act which has been the subject-matter of an appeal before the Tribunal?
Held that:- Having regard to the scheme manifested from the amendment, that is to say, to make the Commissioner's decision final, subject to an appeal to the Tribunal where the Tribunal is enjoined to hear such an appeal by a bench of three members and where revision is provided only in special cases, in our opinion, it would be improper to interpret the spirit and reason of that law in such a way as to enjoin that a further revision lay to the High Court under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the High Court was right that no further revision in such a situation lie to the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 114 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Demand under Customs Act - Jurisdiction thereto - Show cause notice - Foreign exchange ... ... ... ... ..... hen it would mean setting aside that portion of the show cause notice also regarding which the learned judge did not interfere. We are also unable to accept the contention that because the second part has not been set aside, the first part cannot also be set aside. As rightly pointed out by the learned single judge these are two different matters and it does not prevent this court from setting aside the bad part without interfering with the other part. 12. For the aforesaid reasons there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with costs. We ought to point out that though this appeal has been filed in the year 1975 from an order of 1973 this has taken such a long time for the reasons we have also recorded in our order dated 22nd January, 1986. The respondent shall be entitled to obtain money deposited as costs directed to be deposited by us by our order. This is for the costs thrown away. In any event the appellants will pay the costs of this appeal.
-
1989 (2) TMI 112 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a learned single judge sitting in chambers is competent to dismiss applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals under Order XX-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, regarding appeals under section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, as well as under Order XX-B regarding appeals under section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, and section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
Held that:- A single learned judge, in chambers, is and was always competent to dismiss all applications for condonation of delay in statutory appeals. We find nothing repugnant in the same and no substance in the contention that otherwise the same would be violative of article 14 of the Constitution. The review petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal By Special Leave, Benami Transaction, Law Commission Report, Retrospective Operation, Statute For Prohibition, Supreme Court
-
1989 (2) TMI 110 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Presumptive Income Tax On Trade, Taxation ... ... ... ... ..... Apart from stating that it is an undue burden and that the provisions are discriminatory, the petitioners have not been able to marshal materials massive enough to make the court feel that a constitutional guarantee of trader-citizen is under serious jeopardy or that he has been subjected to an evil and vicious discrimination. In that background, the attack has to fail and the petitioners have to seek solace elsewhere. Some contentions about the impact of the tax, particularly in the area of liquor, were urged by the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the State of Kerala. If the legislative competence of the Union is established and if the attack on grounds of discrimination is dispelled, the surviving contention would be more only in the political arena than in the legal field. This court shall, ordinarily, keep off from such political thickets, unless compulsive situations demand its entry. The writ petitions are dismissed. I do not, however, make any order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 109 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Firm, Loss ... ... ... ... ..... of section 77(1) of the Act, that if an unregistered firm becomes a registered firm in the subsequent years, the loss incurred by the unregistered firm can be carried forward in the subsequent years in spite of the registration. One of the prerequisites for doing this is that the firm should be the same. If there is a change in the constitution of the firm, then, different consequences may flow. Here, there is no change in the constitution of the firm, and, therefore, the word firm used at the end of section 77(1) of the Act would include both a registered as well as an unregistered firm. The registration of the firm does not take away the benefit which would have accrued to it under section 77(1) of the Act, if it had remained unregistered. Accordingly, we agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court and hold that carry forward was rightly allowed and the referred question is decided in favour of the assessee, that is, in the affirmative, with no order as to costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 108 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ereafter the major share of the profit was to be of the company. On these facts, the Tribunal held, after taking into account the totality of the circumstances, that the income derived by the company was agricultural income. It has been urged that since the land belonged to Bhumidhars, the income arising out of it would belong to them and not to the assessee. The submission appears to be devoid of any merit in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal that agricultural income, according to subclause (i)(b) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, means any income derived from land used for agricultural purposes. In the result, both the applications fail and are dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 107 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... setting up an additional business building, even if the building is not constructed, the interest paid on the loan to raise the building and the municipal taxes would be permissible deductions, as they are incurred on the new asset acquired by a running concern. Moreover, the municipal tax is paid not for acquisition of any business asset but for retention of the same, and, therefore, it would be allowable as a business deduction under section 37 of the Act. This view of ours finds full support from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. J. K. Industries P. Ltd. 1980 125 ITR 218, of the Karnataka High Court in Addl. CIT v. Southern Founders 1979 120 ITR 37 and of the same High Court in C. T. Desai v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 240. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee, that is, in the negative, viz., that the Tribunal did not err in allowing deduction of municipal taxes on the purchased plot before it was put to use for business purposes. No costs.
-
1989 (2) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... n, there is ample safeguard under rule 73 of the Second Schedule to Income-tax Act, 1961, which empowers the Tax Recovery Officer to proceed only after he is satisfied about the various conditions mentioned in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2). In view of these safeguards, we dispose of this petition by directing that the petitioners shall not be arrested or detained unless the Recovery Officer proceeds in accordance with rule 73 and records reasons as contemplated therein. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1989 (2) TMI 105 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the parties conceded that the matter arising in this case is covered by a decision of this court in CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors Private Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 647. In that case, it has been held that the amount of capital subsidy is not deductible in computing the actual cost of the assets for the purpose of calculating depreciation admissible to the assessee. Following that decision, therefore, it must be held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Government would not go to reduce the cost of the assets for the purpose of allowing depreciation. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1989 (2) TMI 104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee in the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration did not constitute income in the assessee s hands which could be subjected to tax ? (2) Whether the amount under dispute became the income of the assessee and taxable in his hands, on the basis of the accounting followed by him, the moment the assessee deposited the same in F. D. R. and thereby became the real owner of the money ? We, therefore, direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, to draw up a statement of the case and submit the same for the opinion of this court.
............
|
