|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 240 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 246 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Winding up - Appeals from orders ... ... ... ... ..... ects some right or liability of any party. Thus, an order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside an ex parte order is subject to appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal. In the context of section 483 and the procedure prescribed for advertisement of a company petition after admission, an order admitting a petition could be construed as an order governing procedural matters only. that is why the Supreme Court has also, in National Conduit s case 1967 37 Comp. Cas. 786, pointed out that even after the petition is admitted, it is open to the company to move the court that the petition shall not be advertised. It is needless to point out that it is open to the company to place all the materials before the learned company judge while urging that the petition shall not be advertised, as otherwise the very purpose of giving an opportunity to the company in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, as stated above, will become useless. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 245 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Officer who is in default – Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... managing director was not shown as the judgment-debtor but in the present case as already stated above Rabindra Grewal was shown as judgment-debtor but as managing director. However, the grounds mentioned under section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, have not been proved to take any action against the judgment-debtor, Rabindra Grewal, for his detention in prison. In the affidavit submitted by Rabindra Grewal which is on the execution file it was stated that he was not possessing any property or means to pay the decretal amount. At this stage no evidence to the contrary has been produced by the decree-holder. Even otherwise no evidence has been produced by the decree-holder that Rabindra Grewal was in possession of means to pay the decretal amount. On that account also Rabindra Grewal cannot be detained in prison in the proceedings initiated in the application aforesaid. For the reasons recorded above, the application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 244 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... ne 30, 1990, constitute a valid demand under section 434(1)(a) of the Act. The petitioner is claiming interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum. In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, 12 per cent. would be a just and reasonable rate of interest. The company is, therefore, liable to pay to the petitioner interest calculated at 12 per cent. per annum on Rs. 1,15,000 from March 1, 1990, till the payment of that amount was made to the petitioner in these proceedings. The parties may calculate the exact amount of interest. The company may make the payment of interest amount to the petitioner on or before November 20, 1992. In case payment as directed by this order is not made, it will be presumed that the company is unable to pay and the petition shall stand admitted and the petitioner will take steps to get the citation published in Statesman, Jansatta and the Delhi Gazette indicating that the petition will be listed before the court on February 26, 1993.
-
1992 (11) TMI 229 - MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Unfair trade practices - Whether, where it was not a fresh/first issue but was further issue of capital, decision to reserve a larger percentage of shares in favour of a specific group consisting of co-promoters, foreign collaborator, etc., in comparison to reservation of a lesser percentage of shares/debentures in favour of general public, etc., could be said to be unfair or unjust practice - Held, no
-
1992 (11) TMI 221 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... lvent at the same time laying down that the creditor has an alternative means of filing a suit to recover the debt is irrelevant. Therefore, taking any view of the matter there is nothing for the company to dispute the claim of the petitioners, which is a confirmed debt and, therefore, as a matter of course, the petitioners are entitled to a winding up order. Shri Chagla did argue on the basis of the balance-sheets and other documents that the company is commercially insolvent. I feel that I should not go into this question as I have already held that the company is unable to pay the debt without any defence. Shri Chagla may be right that commercial insolvency will not depend on the assets of the company but the question is one of liquidity to pay the debt. The petition is admitted and the company be wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The official liquidator is appointed to take charge of the property and effects of the company. Advertisement to follow.
-
1992 (11) TMI 213 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit - Input ... ... ... ... ..... e for cutting the risers and runners. In this case it is used in the furnace for purpose of melting the molten metal and hence it is identifiable with the machinery. Since this fact is not revealed in the declaration, extended period is applicable. 6. emsp After hearing both the sides, the undisputed factual position is that oxygen gas is fed into to the furnance for removing impurities and for oxidation and combustion. It is therefore, necessarily to be fed in the product mix for obtaining the requisite quality molten material for casting. This can neither be called a tool/machinery/ a part of machinery nor can it be construed to be an item required for upkeep or maintenance of machinery. This is a direct input used in the manufacture of steel casting. Hence I allow the appeal on merits it- self, though the appellants also appear to have a case on the ground of time bar. 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, the stay application does not survive for consideration.
-
1992 (11) TMI 212 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Penalty - Substantial quantity of contraband goods seized from tank of vessel ... ... ... ... ..... 112 of the Act, for the reasons stated above and on consideration of the entire evidence on record, we hold that the charge under this Section has been brought home against the appellants and in this view of the matter we confirm the findings of the adjudicating authority against the appellants in terms of the impugned order. 11. The goods under seizure have not been claimed by the appellants and are indeed disowned by them. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the plea that the appellants have lost their job. We are inclined to think that interests of justice would be served if the penalty on each of the appellant levied under the impugned order under Section 112 is reduced to 15 of the c.i.f. value in each case except in the case of appellant M. Satyam and we order accordingly. In the case of appellant M. Satyam, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 100/- (Rupees One hundred). Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 211 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aldicarb oxime being an insecticide ... ... ... ... ..... VD claiming the benefit of Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982. It was rejected by the Assistant Collector. But on appeal the Collector (Appeals) relying upon Order No. 1456/90-C dated 26-12-1990 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. C/2270/89-C allowed the refund claim holding that the subject imported goods, namely, Aldicarb Oxime is Insecticides. In view of the said decision of the Tribunal he has nothing to add further but to say that whatever was argued on behalf of the Revenue in that appeal No. C/2270/89-C may also be considered for the purpose of this appeal. 3. We have considered the submissions. In the aforesaid case of M/s Union Carbide India Limited v. Collector of Customs, Bombay Order No. 1456/90-C, dated 26-12-1990, this Tribunal had taken the view that Aldicarb Oxime is insecticides. Thus, following the ratio of the said decision we uphold the impugned order-in-Appeal with consequential relief to the Respondents. Consequently, the appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (11) TMI 210 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR (APPEALS), NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the aforesaid regard, I observe that whereas invoice No. IOM -518012/0011 dated 13-5-1992 is for the value of the goods, another invoice No. IOM - 518012/0012 dated 13-5-1992 is for the interest amount of US 608.00. The appellants have also filed a copy of the indent dated 2-4-1992 which mentions the price as follows - ldquo US 1968/- (US Dollars One thousand nine hundard and sixty eight only) per MT CIF Bombay or Nhavasheva by Sea, final destination ICD, New Delhi Freight from Bombay or Nhavasheya to ICD New Delhi to be borne by importer. Since you require 90 days credit you will have to pay US 32/- per MT additionally for the usance period. LC should provide a suitable clause in this regard. 6. In view of the above, I find that the adjudication order is not correct in including the interest amount on delayed payment, paid by the appellants, in the assessable value of the impugned goods. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1992 (11) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... advocate against the lower appellate authorities rsquo order is that discount of 30 . given by the lower authorities is arbitrary. In view of the reasons given by the learned Technical Member, I do not think that this quantum of discount can be termed lsquo arbitrary rsquo . I also find from a copy of telex from Mr. B. Redwan of Honeywell (Annexure 10 to the appeal) in the case of M/s. Popular Exports (P) Limited that quantity discount ranging from 5 to 30 depending upon bulk buying to their authorised wholesale dealers has been indicated in the said telex. The lower authorities have given the maximum quantity discount of 30 available on such products as given by M/s. Honeywell even in case of bulk buying, 27. Accordingly, I agree with the learned Technical Member. 3-11-1992 Sd/- (P.C. Jain) Technical Member 28. Final Order , - In view of the majority decision, the appeal is dismissed. New Delhi 24-11-1992 Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (Technical) Sd/- (Harish Chander) President
-
1992 (11) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... proper for us to allow the appeal in respect of the seized goods and their liability to duty and imposition of penalty in respect of seized goods merely on the finding that Collector lacks jurisdiction under Section 11A. The Bench would necessarily have to give its findings on merits whether the goods manufactured by the appellants are liable to duty at all and, therefore, whether the seized goods are liable to confiscation and further whether the appellants can be visited with a penalty under the Central Excise law in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. In the light of the above discussion we allow the miscellaneous application, and permit the applicants to raise the two additional grounds set out in the miscellaneous application. 10. As we have held in paragraphs 6 to 8 above, that there is a conflict on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction still exists, we refer the matter to the Hon rsquo ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict.
-
1992 (11) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal disposed of on grounds different from those mentioned in adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... order to avail the exemption under Notification No. 75/67-C.E., dated 20-5-1967 and in our considered opinion rightly so, in view of the settled position of the law in this regard. See Kishan lal Dalmia v. Collector of Central Excise, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 76 (Cal.) and Vapsan Products and Another v. Union of India, 1987(27) E.L.T. 608 (Bom.). But he in our considered opinion, erred in making out a fresh case for the Department by holding that the appellants were required to file the D-3 intimations and that a part of the refund claim was time-barred, as it was the appellants who had come in appeal before him and not the Revenue. That apart, in the Show Cause Notice the rejection of the refund claim was not proposed either on the ground that the appellants failed to file the D-3 intimations or that a part of it was time-barred. Thus, the impugned Orders cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants in accordance with law.
-
1992 (11) TMI 206 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... service of show cause notice on clearing agent is not a valid service after goods have been released. 5. We have considered the submissions. In the case of Collector of Customs, Cochin v. M/s. Trivandrum Rubber Works Limited, supra, this Tribunal after referring to the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and the case law on the point concluded that service of Show Cause Notice demanding the duty on clearing agent is not a valid service after the goods have been released and that the importer to whom the demand notice was issued beyond the period of six months cannot be made to pay the duty under Customs Act, merely because a copy of the notice was sent to the clearing agent in time. Besides for the reasons mentioned by the Collector (Appeals) (with which we agree) we are satisfied that the Department has failed to prove that the less charge demand was issued within six months from the date of the payment of the duty. 6. Thus, we reject the appeal being devoid of any merit.
-
1992 (11) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... itted fact that the appellants are purchasing these rubber rings and lubricants at lower cost but selling at higher cost. In other words they are making profit by selling these boughtout items. When once the cost of rubber rings is not includible in the assessable value of coupling having regard to the fact and circumstances of this case the entire cost is to be excluded, as it is not the department rsquo s case that the value of coupling is depressed by enhancing the cost of the rubber rings and lubricants. Further if the appellants earn profit by trading in the sale of rubber rings and lubricants, and if the cost of rubber rings and lubricants is not includible in the assessable value of coupling in the light of the order of the Government of India the profit made by the appellants cannot be added to the assessable value of the couplings. 5. We follow the earlier decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is any public interest involved in the transfer of the appellant as Joint Secretary?
Held that:- Clause 2(b) of the Fundamental Rules as amended by Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 1981 provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Rules, the Governor may in public interest transfer a government servant to a post in another cadre or to an ex-cadre post. The order dated July 8, 1992 does not recite any public interest. We are also not in a position to discover from the other records available before us whether the transfer of the appellant was in public interest. In the absence of a counter-affidavit or even the relevant records, we are left with no option than to conclude that no public interest is involved. It cannot be gainsaid that transfer is a necessary concomitance of every service; but if such a transfer could be effected only on certain conditions, it is necessary to adhere to those conditions. In this case, “the public interest” being absent, the impugned order of transfer cannot be supported.
-
1992 (11) TMI 203 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Remission of duty on goods destroyed ... ... ... ... ..... the State authority that the molasses were destroyed and drained out were in any way false report. In such circumstances, the appellants should be given the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the demand of duty on this count and the imposition of penalty under 173Q are not in accordance with law, and we set aside the same. The above principles laid down in the above-cited decisions are applicable to the facts of this case. In the premises, we hold that since the molasses is an item, the storage, disposal and transport of which is controlled by the State Excise authorities and as the appellants could not dispose of the same because of the constraints and since it is already shown by the Report of the State authorities that the molasses were actually destroyed, the benefit should go to the appellants in view of the proviso to Rule 49(1) as stated above. Accordingly, the demand of duty is not in accordance with law and we set aside the same. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
-
1992 (11) TMI 202 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Gate Pass - Pre-authentication ... ... ... ... ..... of Rs. 30/-. (Belgaum Collectorate Trade Notice No. 21/90, dated 2-2-1990) From the above, it is seen that it has been clarified that the copies of G.P. 1 etc. which are documents prepared by the licencees themselves will be issued by the Superintendents without collecting the fee of Rs. 30/-. In the present case it is not even the certified copies of the Gate Passes that are required by the respondents. They only want the extra copy of the blank Gate Passes in the Book to be preauthenticated. No fee under Rule 223B (Should be Rule 224B Ed.) is attracted. We accordingly dismiss the appeal of the Collector. 6 The cross-application filed by the respondents which has been registered as a cross-objection does not have the attributes of a cross-objection. No relief against the impugned order is sought therein. It only seeks the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the Order-in-Original. The appeal has been dismissed. The cross-objection which is misconceived is dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 201 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ere is nothing on record to show that this witness Jayendra Singh (PW 1) bore any ill will against accused Surajbali or that he had falsely implicated him. Thus, there is no illegality committed by the courts below in holding applicant/accused Surajbali guilty of the offence under Section 9A of the Opium Act. As regards sentence awarded to applicant Surajbali Tiwari the same cannot be said to be very harsh and hence, in my opinion, the same call for no interference in this revision. 7. There is no merit in this revision petition filed on behalf of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Conviction and sentence of the applicant/accused, Surajbali Tiwari awarded under Section 9A of Opium Act is confirmed. Applicant/accused Surajbali is reported to be on bail, he shall appear before the C.J.M./ Shahdol on 16-11-1992 to hear the result of the revision petition and to undergo the sentence awarded to him, under Section 9A of the Opium Act.
-
1992 (11) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... Chapter 84 or 85 depending upon whether they are manually operated or power operated. The literature regarding the millstones produced by the appellants would indicate that they are meant for power operation and these are meant for flour mills. The appellants have also referred to the clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which would also seem to support their claim that such millstones fitted with frame work are to be classified under Chapter 84. In this view of the matter, the classification of the goods under Chapter 68 is not sustainable. The Assistant Collector has already given a finding in Para-12 of his order that the millstones are parts of flour mill machines and in view of this, their classification under sub-heading 8437.00 will be justified and consequently the goods will also be eligible for Notification No. 111/88 as amended by Notification No. 141/88, since the goods fall under Chapter 84. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (11) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NFW DELHI
Recovery of Government dues in spite of classification of goods having already decided by Tribunal
........
|
