|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 316 Records
-
1991 (7) TMI 259 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property ... ... ... ... ..... gful withholding of the property under section 630 of the Companies Act (reference in this connection may be made to Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh 1982 52 Comp Cas 1 (Bom.)). I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Bombay High Court on this point. It is an admitted fact that the quarters in question were allotted to the petitioner when she was an employee of the company. She did not vacate it for the last about eight years and is still in possession. The allegation in the complaint filed by the company against the petitioner is that she is wrongfully withholding it. In these circumstances and on the basis of facts and the legal position stated above, I hold that the complaint, annexure P-5, filed by the company against the petitioner and the consequent summoning order are valid and legal. I do not find it a case in which interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for. This petition is, thus, dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 258 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Meetings and Proceedings – Sections 171 to 186 to apply to meetings ... ... ... ... ..... y for the purpose of electing a managing director and members of the board of directors. From this, it is quite clear that this court was exercising its power under section 392 of the Companies Act to enforce the revival scheme. The court had jurisdiction to convene the meeting. Point No. 5. mdash The contention that the meeting was not held as notified is without any merit. In fact, such a contention was not urged at the time of arguments. The records show that the meeting was actually held as notified. It may also be observed that the newly elected board of directors have taken charge as per the directions of this court. Learned counsel for the additional third respondent has raised several other grounds also in the counter-affidavit filed in this application. I do not think that it is necessary to go into the other contentions, although they had been also urged before this court at the time of arguments. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 257 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up – Official liquidator to be liquidator, Investment of moneys ... ... ... ... ..... ect that these expenses are expenses in the winding up administration of the company. Under these circumstances, it is declared that all the expenses incurred by the liquidator in respect of Wandoor Jupiter Chits (Pvt.) Ltd. (in liquidation) (this report is treated as a report in respect of that company alone), viz., cost of revenue stamps, cost of court fee stamps, audit fee, filing fee, Central Government commission, estate clerks salary, advocate fee, professional fee to chartered accountant, godown rent, printing charges, advertisement charges, travelling allowance, bank commission, witness batta, estate establishment expenses, remuneration paid to watchmen and other miscellaneous expenses which the liquidator is incurring as per orders of this court are allowable expenses in the winding up administration of the company (in liquidation). If necessary, the liquidator may file separate reports in respect of each company and obtain separate orders in respect of each company.
-
1991 (7) TMI 237 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Custody of company’s property ... ... ... ... ..... no specific provision to take leave to sue a receiver, courts have taken a view that in case there is a court receiver, leave of the court to sue him should be obtained, but even if leave at the initial stage has not been obtained and a suit has been filed, leave can be applied for and obtained even before passing of the decree and it will relate back to the filing of the suit or the application, as the case may be. It can, therefore, be said that the application of the petitioner, official liquidator, that the court receiver should be arrayed as respondent No. 4 should be allowed and the official liquidator should be asked to obtain leave of the Bombay High Court which appointed the court receiver to continue the proceedings. Consequently, I allow the application of the official liquidator that the court receiver be impleaded as respondent No. 4 and direct the official liquidator to obtain leave of the Bombay High Court to continue the proceedings against the court receiver.
-
1991 (7) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in the absence of their involvement or connivance with Exporters in importing such wrong goods. In the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that it is not necessary to order confiscation and consequently fine and penalty. 10. emsp As regards valuation, the point of dispute was neither raised by the appellants nor considered by the Adjudicating Authority at the original stage. We feel this aspect has to be examined afresh. Accordingly, we are remanding the matter to the concerned Collector on this limited issue with a direction to redetermine the value of the goods in question, after giving an opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence, if any, in support of their contention, in addition to the evidence produced before us which are on record. Since the goods are lying with the Customs Authorities, the Collector is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest possible time on receipt of this order. 11. emsp The appeal is, thus, disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (7) TMI 225 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat on waste of Aluminium and Copper - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... facture of specified finished product, cannot arise. The case law cited by the learned Chartered Accountant Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Electrical Switchgears (P) Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1990 (27) ECR 398 (Cegat NRB), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Inasmuch as we find that two Benches of the Tribunal have taken divergent views, we hold that the plea of the applicants for the reference of the question of law as to whether in terms of Rule 57G(2) the applicants rsquo inputs could be considered as non-duty paid by virtue of these being exempted under notification referred to supra has to be accepted. The following question of law is, therefore, referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for decision ldquo Whether the Hon rsquo ble Tribunal was correct in law in denying the Deemed Credit in respect of Waste and Scrap of Copper and Aluminium conferred by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Order No. B. 22/5/86TRU, dated 7-4-1986. rdquo
-
1991 (7) TMI 224 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Additional duty of customs - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... ufactured goods from payment of excise duty wholly or partly does have the effect, and serves the purpose of exempting like goods imported into India from payment of additional duty of customs. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1987 (32) E.L.T. 465 (Mad.) and also of the Tribunal decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Carborandum Universal, reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 300 (Tribunal). This has further been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 576 (Tribunal). Therefore, the conclusions of the Collector (Appeals) about the availability of exemption under Notification No. 16/83-C.E. to the waste/scrap cleared for home consumption by the respondents herein is well founded, and in this view of the matter, we see no reasons to interfere with his order. The appeal is accordingly rejected.
-
1991 (7) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund claim - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... o observe that the statutory right conferred under Section 11B for claiming refund of duty cannot be taken away merely because of the fact that no appeal was filed against the approval of classification list. Sections 11A and 11B are independently available for operation, for demanding short levy by the Department or for claiming refund by the assessee, irrespective of whether appeal is filed on approved classification list or otherwise. In view of the settled legal position, if a letter of protest (a prelude to save limitation for filing refund claim) is lodged before approval of classification list, that has to be considered and rejected by the Assistant Collector. In view of this, we set aside the orders of authorities below and remand the case back to the Assistant Collector for considering the letter of protest dated 6-5-1986 and if on that basis, refund is admissible on merits, the claim should be entertained and refund granted. 7. Appeal disposed of in the above terms.
-
1991 (7) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Return of duty paid goods - Separate re-processing not necessary ... ... ... ... ..... fund claim is that the appellants have mixed the goods with other non-duty paid goods and no separate reprocessing of the goods received has been carried out. On a perusal of Rule 173L, it is observed that no such stipulation of reprocessing of the returned goods separately is prescribed under the Rule. What is contemplated in the Rule is that the goods should be returned under proper intimation and should be accounted for in the prescribed record. On a perusal of the record, it is found that this has been complied with and the issue for repocessing is also noted and the number of bottles obtained by way of reprocessing is also mentioned. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Asstt. Collector is not justified in rejecting the refund claim only on the ground that the reprocessing has not been done separately. In this view of the matter, I allow the appeal and remand the case back to the Asstt. Collector for considering the refund claim and grant consequential relief.
-
1991 (7) TMI 221 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund of duty paid in advance as deposit ... ... ... ... ..... came to be filed before the Asstt. Collector beyond a period of six months. Hence, refund claim was rejected as time barred. Appeal against the said order was also rejected. 3. After hearing both the sides, I find that the payment on provisional AR I was itself a deposit in respect of anticipated clearance on the Budget day. When no clearance has taken place, the amount collected under AR I on a provisional basis towards the anticipated clearance has to be given back by making suitable credit in the PLA on the very same date of final assessment. It is not a case where any adjudication is involved. It is a simple and straight case of restoring the deposit made towards the anticipated clearance to be made on the Budget day but no clearance actually effected on that day. In the circumstances, the Supdt. ought to have allowed the credit in PLA, without directing the appellants to resort to refund procedure. In this view of the matter, appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (7) TMI 220 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund consequent upon cancellation of gate pass ... ... ... ... ..... not have to debit this amount. Having debited this amount themselves, they could only claim refund of duty involved on the Gate pass. Though they were advised to file refund claim well in time, they have delayed the filing of the refund claim, the consequences of which have to be borne by the appellants. 4. After hearing Shri Naik, I find that the fact relating to the cancellation of the Gate pass is not disputed. If that is so, the Supdt. could always verify the position with regard to the cancellation of the Gate Pass and also check up arithmetically whether the total debit includes the duty covered by the cancelled Gate Pass and given the credit in the PLA.The argument of Shri Naik that the appellants themselves need not have debited this amount also supports the position in this regard. In view of this, the Supdt. ought to have given credit when he was specifically requested by the appellants in the RT-12 returns. I, therefore, allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1991 (7) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ctor (Appeals) is that appellants did not follow the Chapter X procedure and they were required to satisfy the department regarding the use of steam in another factory of theirs. Unless, it is deliberate and malafide, failure on the part of the assessee to follow certain procedures cannot come in the way of his availing the substantive benefit under statutory provisions, as long as he can satisfy the department, even at a later date, that he fulfilled the essential requirements to establish his entitlement to such benefits. rdquo 5. In the matter before us there is no dispute as to the quantity. There is only single clearance in April, 1983. We are of the view that the appellants had made substantial compliance of the condition laid down in the Notification No. 118/75-C.E. and there was substantive compliance of Chapter X procedure. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order, the appeal is allowed and direct the Revenue authorities to give consequential effect to this order.
-
1991 (7) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation of container ... ... ... ... ..... visions of sub-section (2) of Section 115 of the Act and liability to confiscation could accrue if the same was used to the knowledge of the owner, or that the owner had not taken appropriate precautions. 16. Here, as indicated earlier, the owners are not proved to have any knowledge or were concerned with stuffing of the same. Non-imposition of any penalty under Section 112 of the Act, on the appellants, shows that the appellants did not transport the contraband goods knowingly or that they were knowingly associated in that activity, and viewing the issue from that angle, the immunity available to the vessel also stands available to the subject container. 17. This being the position, the order of confiscation of the subject container vide Section 118(a) of the Customs Act, cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the authority below, to this extent is therefore set aside. The consequential reliefs, if any, to follow.
-
1991 (7) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... held that part of duty claim has to be considered as profit and has also to be added in the assessable value. This view of Assistant Collector is not sustainable. In case the Revenue was dissatisfied with the order of the previous Assistant Collector who granted the refund, then the course open for the Revenue was to have appealed before the Collector (Appeals) against the said order. Instead, they have reopened the case and have denied the part of the refund claim granted earlier on the ground which is also not sustainable. 10. The view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Machine Products and the Tribunal in the case of Bright Brothers (supra) are quite relevant to this case and the ratio of these rulings can be applied to the facts of this case. The appellants are entitled to succeed in this appeal and their claim for refund for the amounts paid in excess of the rate paid under TI 14D are liable to be refunded. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1991 (7) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... his order has also rejected this argument of appellants on a similar ground, which is quite tenable. In the result the prayer of the appellant to classify it under heading 4818.19 has to be rejected. As it does not come in any of the sub-headings under the heading ldquo cartons, boxes etc. rdquo , it has to go under sub-heading 4818.90 as ldquo other rdquo , which comes under heading ldquo Other articles of paper pulp, paper, paperboard cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibers rdquo . 9. As regards the contention of the learned Consultant that the Board rsquo s circular treating it as ldquo container rdquo should be accepted by us, on this point the reply of learned JDR that the same is not binding on the quasi-judicial bodies and Tribunal is well-founded as also held by Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Carbon Paper (supra). 10. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower authorities and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and we order accordingly.
-
1991 (7) TMI 215 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... e extension of MODVAT benefit should take effect only from 18-2-1989. 3. We have considered the submissions of the learned SDR and perused the records and written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee, M/s. Veena Organic (P) Ltd. We are of the view that the ROM application is misconceived and not maintainable inasmuch as the demand originally made for the period from 18-1-1989 to 20-3-1989 gets reduced by virtue of the Tribunal rsquo s order to the period 25-1-1989 to 20-3-1989. Therefore, the turnover for the period 18-1-1989 to 20-3-1989 should be reduced by the turnover for the period from 18-1-1989 to 24-1-1989. From out of that turnover for the period 25-1-1989 to 20-3-1989, the value of Rs. 15 lakhs is to be deducted under Notification No. 175/86. In this view of the matter, there is no mistake at all in the final order of the Tribunal and therefore, the ROM application is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 4. Accordingly, the ROM application is dismissed.
-
1991 (7) TMI 214 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund - Payment of duty under protest ... ... ... ... ..... followed in subsequent cases also. 3. Shri Sundararaju, the learned SDR, submitted that a strict construction of Rule 233B would enjoin a party to make protest endorsement in RT 12 returns and the Gate Passes. Nevertheless in the light of the ruling of the Bench relied upon by the learned Consultant the matter may be remitted for re-consideration after due verification of the factual details with reference to records. 4. We have considered the submission made before us. The refund claim is restricted to the instances where protest endorsements are found in the Gate Passes. Since we are not in a position to make a factual verification of the same, we set aside the impugned order to this limited extent in the light of the ratio of the ruling of this Bench cited supra and remit the matter for consideration of the appellant rsquo s refund claim with reference to the protest endorsements in the various Gate Passes and in the light of the ruling of this Bench. Ordered accordingly.
-
1991 (7) TMI 213 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... (Appeals). There is no provision to exclude the period when wrong forum was approached. The Consultant also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. Katiji and Others reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.). Reliance on this judgment is also mis-placed. This is because of the fact that condonation of delay can be considered where the statute makes the enabling provision. In this case, the statute does not make any provision for the Collector (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond the period of 3 months, after the normal period of 3 months. When, statutorily, the Collector (Appeals) does not have any powers, he, being a creature of the statute, cannot over-ride the provisions of the Act and exercise the discretion beyond three months. In view of this, we reject all the three appeals. Since the appeals are dismissed, the stay applications do not survive for consideration and they are treated as disposed of.
-
1991 (7) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... rsonal gain to the video libraries for being circulated on payment of specific amount as rent. The entire transactions that have been undergoing is an outright commercial transaction. This is a type of a transaction which is going on and in whatever form the price is realised, the same has to be treated as the sale price in larger sense of term, though the same may not fall within the dictionary meaning of the same. In my view, therefore, the benefit of proviso 2 to the exemption notification cannot be made applicable to them. The Special Bench, in the decisions cited by the JDR, had before them the case of Audio cassettes which were being recorded on the blank cassettes submitted by the customers. Therefore, it was not a case of pre-recorded cassettes meant for earning, by giving the same to the video libraries. The basis here is entirely different. Here is a case of entirely a commercial transaction. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the appeal and reject the same.
-
1991 (7) TMI 211 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ffect to. The appellant having once acted on the said policy, has to be protected when he has acted with all bona fide and even the doctrine of promissory estoppel might stand attracted and it may not be available for the Govt. now to say that because in the subsequent policy, some changes were made, the import effected under the earlier policy provisions, squarely falling within the ambit of Para 7, would not be allowed. 9. The delay in shipment has been attributed to the suppliers and there is no challenge to this aspect. 10. Under the circumstances, when express permission has been granted to the appellant under Para 7 of Appx. 10 of Policy 82-83 and when the appellants are falling squarely within the said provisions, the order of the authority below objecting to the clearance of the consignment under OGL is not sustainable and is therefore set aside. 11. In the result, the order of the authority below is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief to follow.
............
|
