|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 290 Records
-
1990 (3) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prosecution - Sale of case property during trial - Seizure (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... have been exercised by the Magistrate for ordering sale of the case property if it is otherwise expedient to do so particularly when the accused has not opposed the prayer of the complainant for directing sale of the said property even before the trial is concluded. It is not understandable why the Magistrate ought not to have exercised the discetion vested in him for directing sale of the said property treating the matter as covered by the words if it is otherwise expedient so to do. Keeping in view the difficulty being expressed by the customs people in having enough storage space and when the prayer for sale of the property during the trial is not being opposed by the defence interest of justice required that Magistrate ought to have directed the sale of the seized property. 6. I, hence, allow the petition and set aside the impugned order and direct that the case property be sold after preserving five pieces of each category from the case property for the purpose of trial.
-
1990 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Manufacturer - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ation for taking that view, the show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals and the order passed thereon by Collector deserve to be quashed and set aside. So also the prosecution which has been launched against Apex Electricals will have to be quashed on the ground that it did not commit the offence alleged against it. 19.In the result, all these petitions are allowed. It is declared that the action of the excise authorities directing Apex Electricals to apply for loan licence and follow the prescribed procedure and treating the declarations filed by the other petitioners as not acceptable was illegal. The show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals and the order dated 27-11-1984 passed thereon by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Vadodara are quashed and set aside. We also quash the prosecution launched against Apex Electricals on the basis of the said order of the Collector. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Manufacturer - Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... for taking that view, the show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals and the order passed thereon by the Collector deserve to be quashed and set aside. So also the prosecution which has been launched against Apex Electricals will have to be quashed on the ground that it did not commit the offence alleged against it. 19. In the result, all these petitions are allowed. It is declared that the action of the Excise authorities directing Apex Electricals to apply for loan licence and follow the prescribed procedure and treating the declarations filed by the other petitioners as not acceptable was illegal. The show cause notice issued to Apex Electricals and the order dated 27-11-1984 passed thereon by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Vadadora are quashed and set aside. We also quash the prosecution launched against Apex Electricals on the basis of the said order of the Collector. Rule in each of these petitions is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Mechanical Seals specifically designed for fitment into centrifugal pumps ... ... ... ... ..... hat the Mechanical Seals are and will only be used in Centrifugal Pumps. 5. Thus, in the facts of the case of duty on Mechanical Seals or Parts thereof has to be the same as the duty on Centrifugal Pumps under Entry No. 8413.70 as provided in the Notification No. 155/86-Cus. read with other notifications including Notification No. 59/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. 6. As regards the question of limitation in the matter of refund of duty, the petitioners applied for refund in pursuance of this Court s judgment dated 22/23 March, 1988 in their own case. It is common ground that upto March 1988 assessments made from time to time were only provisional. Final order was passed on 2nd June, 1990 in which the plea of limitation was not taken. Even otherwise, the final order being of June 1990, the question of limitation cannot arise. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs. 7. Time for granting refund under the impugned order is further extended by eight weeks from today.
-
1990 (3) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Almonds in-shell - Jurisdiction - Customs authorities' jurisdiction - Confiscation - Classification of goods
-
1990 (3) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Customs - Dutiability - Writ petition - Withdrawal of - Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... the premises, the petitioners are liable to pay the duty of customs on the consignments imported by them which are the subject-matter of dispute in these petitions at the rate of duty as in force in October 1989. The petitioners have cleared the goods on payment of the reduced rate of duty prevailing from to the Respondents differential duty being the difference between the duty paid by them at the time of clearance of the goods and the duty payable as in October 1989. It is ordered accordingly. The respondents will be at liberty to realise the bank guarantee (if any) furnished by the petitioners under the interim orders passed in these petitions. 22. The two petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 71/90 and 719/90 are, therefore, dismissed. 23. Rule is discharged. 24. On the application of the petitioners, the Bank guarantees not to be encashed for a period of two weeks on the petitioners undertaking to keep the Bank guarantees alive for a period of at least 4 weeks from today.
-
1990 (3) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution - Quashing of process ... ... ... ... ..... hin the taxable act, the prosecution probably may be infructuous. Taking note of the steps taken by the petitioners at every stage, after the receipt of instructions by the Excise Authorities, I am of the view that the Criminal Proceedings now pending in C.C. No. 31 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, can be stayed for a reasonable period. In that view, I direct stay of proceedings in C.C. No. 11 of 1989 aforementioned for a period of six months from today. Meanwhile, the prosecution as well the defence are bound to take appropriate steps to have the appeal pending before the C.E.G.A.T. disposed of. 22. While dismissing Cri. M.P. No. 5415 of 1989 by refusing to call for the records in C.C. No. 31 of 1989 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, and quashing the proceedings therein, I direct that the proceedings in the said Calendar case be stayed for six months from today. Subject to the limited stay, this petition is otherwise dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Dairy products — Appeal — Writ jurisdiction invokable — Words and Phrases — Milk ... ... ... ... ..... rtain the writ petition against the impugned action of the respondents on partially skimmed milk powder, which under the Excise Tariff is not subject to excise duty. Hence, the collection of excise duty is without jurisdiction. 21. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the writ petition and issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from collecting the excise duty on the commodity in dispute, which is admittedly partly skim milk powder under the guise of existing sub-heading 0401.19 and hold that under the existing Tariff, no excise duty is leviable on the commodity in dispute. 22. We also issue a writ, order and direction to the respondents to refund the amount of excise duty collected by them on the commodity in dispute with effect from 1-3-1989, to the petitioner within a period of six months from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to have interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. However, there will be ho order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demand — Quoting of wrong rule when invalidates the Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... reme Court we are of the opinion that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable. In the present case the show cause notice was issued under Rule 9(1) of the Rules and the contents of the said notice were based upon the requirements contemplated under the said rule. The requirements as regards the show cause notice under Rule 10 read with amended Rule 173-J are different. Even the Central Board of Excise and Customs in its order has held that the approval by the Assistant Collector was due to inadvertence. If this be so we are unable to read the contents of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner Company as if fulfilling the requirements of Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J of the Rules. 10. On this short ground, in our opinion, the petition must succeed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a)(b) and (c) with a rider that the Assistant Collector may invoke Rule 10 (as amended by Rule 173-J) if permissible in law to demand the duty. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Duty paid under mistake of law - Interest ... ... ... ... ..... o re-process the applications in respect of the 131 Bills of Entry within a week from date and grant refund within two weeks thereafter with interest as specified above. 28. Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, prayed for stay of the operation of the judgment and order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties stay is granted on condition that the entire amount of refund due with interest in terms of this order shall be deposited in a fixed deposit account in the name of the Collector of Customs. The fixed deposit receipt shall be retained by him subject to any order that may be passed in the appeal, if any, preferred by the respondents against this judgment and order. Such deposit shall be made on or before the 15th of April 1990. In any event, there will be an unconditional stay until the 15th of April 1990. 29. All parties shall act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of the judgment and order upon usual undertaking.
-
1990 (3) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Evidence - Prosecution - Acquittal ... ... ... ... ..... shop of Accused No. 16 with a view to cover the bundles in the godown at Bhuleshwar Road and that he had done so as the said idea was given to him by Accused No. 16. The said confessional statement is retracted by Accused No. 19. An uncorroborated retracted confessional statement cannot be made the basis of conviction even in respect of the Accused who had given such confessional statement and, therefore, it can hardly be relied upon to hold other Accused named in such a confessional statement guilty of the offence. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous so as to call for an interference in the appeal filed by the State. At any rate, the view taken by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate must be held to be a plausible view and, therefore, no interference with the same is called for in this appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal fails and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Classification List ... ... ... ... ..... d form. Undisputedly the Superintendent, Central Excise had no authority to reject the classification list submitted by the petitioner. 5. We accordingly dispose of this petition with the direction that the Assistant Collector, Central Excise may pass a reasoned order in this matter after hearing the petitioner. We further direct that till the Assistant Collector passes the order, the petitioner may be allowed to clear Grey Bed Sheets called Sathia Chadar as an item falling under Tariff Item 52.05 subject to the condition that the petitioners furnish bank guarantee representing the amount of excise duty worked out on the basis of Tariff Entry No. 63.01. The bank guarantee which shall be in favour of Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur may be filed within 10 days of the clearance of the stocks failing which this order shall become ineffective. 6. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within three days.
-
1990 (3) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r the said importation of the photo-sensitized material at Bombay was legal or not would now be decided by the Appellate Tribunal. But assuming that M/s Northern Plastics Ltd. takes an appeal against our order to the Supreme Court and our decision is reversed, still the question of the legality of the importation would be open to the parties to be argued in this writ petition before us. Thus, till the main question of legality of importation is finally disposed of, in the interests of justice, it is necessary that the subject-matter of the controversy, viz. the imported goods, are preserved in the custody of the Customs Authorities and are not released. Since the goods are now stored under the suitable conditions of storage with M/s. Northern Plastics Ltd. there is no likelihood of their deteriorating. No variation in our order dated 9-8-1989 in regard to the release of goods is, therefore, called for. 28. The writ petition is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.
-
1990 (3) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Licence - Central Excise exemption from duty different than exemption from licencing control ... ... ... ... ..... do not sec any reason why the Court should not rule, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel, that Section 6 is mandatory requiring the manufacturer of goods which are mentioned in First Schedule to the Tariff Act to take out a licence. 4. I have no reason to believe on account of the seizure in the same month in which the show-cause notice was issued, it should be treated as coercive action compelling the petitioner to make the application and also to take out the licence which is issued. If he was afraid of the consequences of the lack of licence by being exposed to prosecution he would have had ample opportunity to defend himself in such prosecution by demonstrating that he is not required to take out a licence and therefore not liable to be prosecuted. 5. The petitioner is a company and not an ignorant person. One expects that such a company was properly advised in the matter. 6. As such no ground for interference is made out and the writ petitions are dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Aprons and cots - 'Accessories' and 'Components' - Distinction between ... ... ... ... ..... ption or not, the Petition must succeed and hence, the decision of the above question becomes academic. But we want to keep on record that the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with such a question, leaves much to be desired. We fail to see as to how the Tribunal could have said that particular document or position was or was not noticed to the High Court in the earlier Petition. The Petitioners had succeeded before this Court and this Court has not passed the Order in favour of the Petitioners because of suppression of any fact from the Petitioners. To hold that the Petitioners had suppressed some facts or documents before this Court and were therefore guilty of fraud, is perverse, at least prima facie. But as stated above, we have kept the question open and hence, do not wish to base our judgment on this prima facie view of the Court. 22. For the reasons stated above as also for the reasons mentioned in the accompanying judgment, I agree with the Order passed therein.
-
1990 (3) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Stay/Dispensation of Pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... refore, deserves to be allowed. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent 1 has stated before us that the demand in the amount of Rs. 47,262.79 is not disputed by the petitioner and hence as a condition for restoring the appeal, the petitioner should be directed to deposit the said amount with the respondent No. 1 and the stay can operate for the remaining amount. The condition proposed by the respondent No. 1 is fair and just. 3. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order of the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is set aside and the appeal is restored to file on the condition that within one month from the date of this order, the petitioner shall deposit with the respondent No. 1 the undisputed amount of Rs. 47,262.79. The respondent No. 2 shall thereafter decide the appeal within three months and till then there shall be stay for the remaining amount payable by the petitioner. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Set off of duty - Writ Jurisdiction - Quasi-judicial powers ... ... ... ... ..... isation of credit has to be correlated to the quantum of inputs, used in the manufacture of end product. 30. In fact, the scheme provides that the credit can be utilised for payment of duty, against any excisable products, that are brought from the factory. No debit can be claimed after the credit has been taken on goods, brought into the factory. Once raw materials enter the factory of petitioner company, credit is to be taken in accordance with the procedure, prescribed in the Rules, without any correlation to the end product. The credit can be utilised by petitioner, for the payment of duty on any goods, for which credit is taken. These goods need not be exempted goods, but will be those goods, on which duty is payable under the Act. 31. In our view, in terms of the said notification, there need not be any nexus between the inputs and outputs. 32. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the writ petition and the Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Are the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) who have been invested with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a police station under Section 53 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act?
Held that:- if the investigation is conducted by the police, it would conclude in a police report but if the investigation is made by an officer of any other department including the DRI, the Special Court would take cognizance of the offence upon a formal complaint made by such authorised officer of the concerned Government. Needless to say that such a complaint would have to be under Section 190 of the Code. This clause, in our view, clinches the matter. We must, therefore, negative the contention that an officer appointed under Section 53 of the Act, other than a police officer, is entitled to exercise 'all' the powers under Chapter XII of the Code, including the power to submit a report or charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Appeal dismissed.
-
1990 (3) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Adjudication Order - Natural justice - Import of Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... d also requested the hearing on the maintainability of the application. But the respondent has not chosen to send any reply. Even otherwise that the letter dated 10-2-1989 sent by the authorised representatives of the petitioner had not been received by the respondent, yet, even on the representation dated 15-2-1989, the petitioners should have been at least informed that their request would not be complied with and the hearing would go on 24-2-1989 and if the petitioners chose to remain absent on that date, it would be at their peril. The respondent has not taken that course and has not acted in conformity with the principle of natural justice while he passed orders adverse to the petitioners on 24-2-1989. In this view, the impugned orders dated 24-2-1989 is quashed and the respondent is at liberty to restore the proceedings and dispose it of afresh in accordance with law if so desired after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to state their case. No costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 71 - SUPREME COURT
Customs - Exemption to pre-mutilated rags ... ... ... ... ..... he examining officers, indicate that goods in the first two appellants cases are synthetic garments cut into 2, 3, 4 pieces or in two pieces wholly available. The fact that these are rags as declared in the Bills of Entry has not been disputed because there is neither an allegation nor a finding that the goods are not rags. The goods have been assessed as rags. The dispute is that these are not completely mutilated and that these are retrievable and restitchable as fabric or garments. We are unable to agree with this finding of the Collector of Customs on the basis of the examination report and other material on record. There is no indication that the cut made is along the seams of the old clothing so that these are re-stitchable and retrievable as garments. Having regard to the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the tribunal came to the correct conclusion and as such no interference is called for. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
....
|
