|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 154 Records
-
1994 (6) TMI 160
Enforcement officers, appointment and powers of ... ... ... ... ..... n this regard, I may also point out that in State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943, the Supreme Court also observed as follows (at page 948) When a show-cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Government servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The, purpose of issuing show-cause notice is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the matter in the light of the facts and submissions placed by the Government servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before, that stage would be premature. In the result, the writ petition is not admitted, but dismissed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 159
Compensation for negligence - UTI ... ... ... ... ..... redemption value for 16,300 master shares in time as per their promise as the opposite party No. 1 has paid compensation on that account and the complainant/ petitioner accepted the said amount under protest, the same being much below his expectation and nowhere near what would meet the ends of justice. 13. In view of the above position we award directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay the redemption value of Rs. 8,10,110 as reduced by the sum already paid to the complainant/petitioner within ten days from the date of this order. We further direct the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,97,000 as reduced by the compensation already paid to the complainant/petitioner as compensation within ten days from the date of this order. 14. We are not inclined to award interest to the complainant/petitioner for the past period. The opposite party No. 1 to pay cost assessed at Rs. 1,000 to the complainant/petitioner. The complaint petition is thus disposed of. Complaint allowed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 158
Managing director - Disqualification of ... ... ... ... ..... object of making the prayer in the plaint nor in the motion and such a relief was already covered by prayer (d) of the plaint and prayer (a) of the notice of motion. In our judgment, the respondent No. 1 now cannot avoid the consequences of the decision which was invited in the trial Court. In our judgment, the learned Single Judge was in error in granting relief in terms of prayer (b) of the notice of motion. As the relief granted in terms of prayer (a) of the notice of motion is not challenged by the appellant as mentioned hereinabove, the same need not be disturbed. 15. Accordingly, appeal is partly allowed and the judgment dated 17-8-1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No. 1593 of 1992 is set aside in respect of grant of prayer (b) of the motion. Grant of relief in terms of prayer (a) of the notice of motion is not disturbed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs in both the Courts. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 140
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... winding up the company. Thus what is envisaged in clause (iv) of section 394 as dissolution without winding up need not be the consequence of amalgamation of two companies. In this case, the petitioners (of the joint application) have not made out any case for dissolution of the transferor company despite an incautious relief of dissolution being prayed for, inter alia, a catena of reliefs. We don t find any scope for ordering dissolution of the transferor company on the facts of the case and we are of the view that the amalgamation envisaged in the scheme can be sanctioned even without ordering the dissolution. So, the order of the learned single judge can be confirmed, if sanction has to be granted for amalgamation, without granting the relief for dissolution included in prayer (f) of the petition. With the aforesaid findings, we send the case back to the Division Bench for disposal of the appeal after deciding the other issues relating to the facts of the case, if raised.
-
1994 (6) TMI 139
Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... the Supreme Court, though it may not be easy to find alternate employment, neverthe-less, the right of the petitioner to work as industrial workers in any other industry is not in any way affected even if the company or industry is closed. Therefore, the argument based on article 19(1)(g) of the Constitu-tion is misconceived. 22. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been made clear that the State continues to be concerned with the welfare of the workers notwithstanding the proposed disinvestment. I have no doubt that the State will take such measures as are possible within the limits of its resources to help the employees of this company. 23. This petition was taken up for hearing by consent of parties, when the application for vacating stay came up for consideration, as both parties were desirous of an early final decision on the merits of the case. 24. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 138
State Commission -Jurisdiction of ... ... ... ... ..... to pay the redemption value for 17,400 Master shares in time as per its promise as the opposite party No. 1 has paid compensation on that account and the complainant/ petitioner accepted the said amount under protest, the same being much below his expectation and nowhere near what would meet the ends of justice. 13. In view of the above position we award directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay the redemption value of Rs. 8,64,780 as reduced by the sum already paid to the complainant/petitioner within ten days from the date of this order. We further direct the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,17,130 as reduced by the compensation already paid to the com- plainant/petitioner as compensation within ten days from the date of this order. We are not inclined to award interest to the complainant/peti- tioner for the past period. The opposite party No. 1 to pay cost assessed at Rs. 1,000 to the complainant/petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is, thus, disposed of.
-
1994 (6) TMI 137
... ...
... ... ..... will amount to deficiency of service on their part. Had the complainant s grandfather known that the age of the maturity would be after lock in period of 16,17,18,19 and 20 years and then only the amount would be paid, probably he would have invested in some other schemes or with some third parties where he could be sure of receiving the matured amount on completing the age of 20 years of the complainants. 9. The District Forum also observed that under Clause XXXII of the Scheme of the Chairman or in his absence the Executive Trustee of the Trust, may in order to mitigate hardship or for smooth and easy operation of the scheme relax or delete any of the provisions of the scheme wholly or partly. 10. In these circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is open to the Chairman to exercise that power in favour of the complainants. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to accept the order of the District Forum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1994 (6) TMI 136
Unfair trade practice ... ... ... ... ..... 1991 to 17-6-1993 goes uncontroverted. We are also satisfied that the prayer for compensation to the applicant, for this unauthorised retention of the amount, in the form of interest for more than two years, is just and, therefore, he is entitled for 18 per cent interest on the said amount of Rs. 10,000 from 14-5-1991 to 17-6-1993. 8. We, therefore, pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 3,900 under section 12B against the respondent No. 2 and in favour of the applicant in lieu of the retention of the amount of Rs. 10,000 and further interest at the rate of 18 per cent till the recovery of the decretal amount mentioned above. We also assess a sum of Rs. 1,000 as cost to be paid by respondent No. 2 to the applicant. The respondent is directed to pay the decretal amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the applicant shall be entitled to enforce the said decree through the process of Court. 9. The application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (6) TMI 113
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... llants. 16. emsp Reliance was also placed on a decision reported in 1990 (45) E.L.T. 285 in the case of Bimetal Bearings Limited v. Collector of Central Excise. In that particular case, the Appellants along with the reply to the show cause notice produced various documents and no verification of those documents has been done. Therefore, the Tribunal held that in the passing of any verification of their claim, the clandestine removal is not established. But in this case, the documents produced by the Appellants were examined and in 79 instances, they were given the benefit also. Therefore, that decision also does not help the Appellants. Accordingly, these decisions relied on by the Appellants do not help them in this case. In such circumstances, the clandestine removal is proved. The demand of duty and the imposition of penalty and the confiscation of the goods in terms of the impugned order are in accordance with law. We confirm the same. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 111
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to the existence of the facts sought to be proved..... rdquo Therefore, the above facts are sufficient to raise a presumption against the accused and in the light of the above decision, the Department has discharged its onus and it was for the appellant to prove that he has purchased it from the open market and for the purpose of proving the same he should have named the persons from whom he has purchased it so that the Department could have made enquiries from those persons. But those facts which are within the knowledge of the appellant were not told to the Department so as to enable them to make a further enquiry in this behalf, which only goes to show that the appellant has not come out with straightway story and therefore, the initial burden which is discharged by the Department is not rebutted by the appellant. That being the case, the confiscation as well as the imposition of the penalty in question is in order. I confirm the same. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 110
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... we are prima facie of the view that while the extra sums collected in the name of the royalty have to be added to the price to arrive at the assessable values, some relief may be due to the applicant under the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act. Thus we are of the view that if the applicant are desired to pre-deposit the entire amount of Rs. 2,16,96,131, it may amount to undue hardship. Subject to the condition that the applicant deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only), within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this stay order, the pre-deposit of the balance amount will be waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal. If the applicant fails to deposit the above amount of Rs. 1 crore (Rupess one crore only) within the period as stipulated above, then this stay order shall be automatically vacated and the appeal shall be liable for rejection. To come up for compliance after 4 months from the date of the issue of this order.
-
1994 (6) TMI 109
Appeal - Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... nd their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed wherever that is reasonably possible in the light of that principle.. rdquo 6. emsp We feel that omission or lapse arising out of non-compliance with the Court rsquo s order was not of such a serious gravity as to close the door of the Court to the appellants by dismissing the appeal. A procedural step which facilitates hearing of the appeal cannot impede access to justice. And that is what has happened. 4. emsp In view of the above discussion, we recall the earlier order and order the listing of the appeal for hearing on merits on the 8th July, 1994. 5. emsp In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed.
-
1994 (6) TMI 108
Modvat - Polyster Film ... ... ... ... ..... es akin to a translucent paper. Hence the Bench is convinced that these films get partly consumed in the process of manufacture of lamination sheets and lose their identity. They directly go to the process of lamination. rdquo I find that the use of the plastic film in the instant case is similar to the use of the BOPP films in the case cited and relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the appellant and also that it has been contended that the plastic film gets consumed due to repeated use. Even examining this in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court on the admissibility of modvat credit reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 594, I find that plastic film on which modvat has been claimed by the appellant passes the two tests, namely, the test of an input and the test of not being classified under any of the exclusion category items. 6. emsp Having regard to all facts and circumstances of the case, I allow the appeal and set the impugned order aside.
-
1994 (6) TMI 104
Remission of duty - Loss or destruction of goods is not removal ... ... ... ... ..... d themselves about the loss or destruction due to natural causes. They seem to have proceeded on the presumption that even if molasses are lost due to natural causes, the loss could have been prevented and since appellants have not applied for remission, duty could be demanded. Since we have already held that no duty can be demanded in case goods are lost through natural causes, we remand this case to the Collector, Central Excise with the direction to satisfy himself on the basis of relevant records and such other evidence as may be available including any verification report pertaining to the period when the appellants wrote to the department about loss of molasses, and direct that no duty be demanded on such quantity of molasses as is shown to have been lost or destroyed due to floods or other natural causes or which is rendered unfit for consumption. Xxxx In case duty has already been paid, consequential relief to that extent be given. The appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (6) TMI 103
Sugar - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... nder these two notifications are almost similar and it is clear that they are not entitled to get the benefit under both the notifications and since the Notification No. 35/76-C.E. is more beneficial to the party and taking into consideration that the factory was set up after 1-4-1974 the benefit under Notification No. 35/76-C.E. cannot be denied if they are otherwise eligible subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified therein. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case the concession availed under Notification No. 210/73-C.E. is required to be reversed by demanding the same and refund claim with reference to the Notification No. 35/76-C.E. has to be reconsidered by the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly we are remanding the matter to the concerned Assistant Collector to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the above observations and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the party. Thus this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1994 (6) TMI 102
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ent to change the classification which change has taken place under due process of law and should be given due effect. He relies on Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in the case of Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571 (S.C.) 4. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and the peculiar background of the case narrated above, we are prima facie inclined to agree with the ld. Advocate. No doubt, there is no estoppel against law and department can change the classification for any reason whatsoever, but it has also been held by the Supreme Court that classification change takes place prospectively. Hence, we allow the stay petition unconditionally. In view of the stakes of duty involved as also the question of classification being involved we direct the case to be taken out of turn. Accordingly, we fix the case for hearing on 12th January, 1995.
-
1994 (6) TMI 101
Appeal - Hearing ... ... ... ... ..... has been adjourned several times for one reason or another. Learned JCDR also states that the appeal has been preferred against the order extending the period for issue of show cause notice which period expired in January, 1992 itself. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant the adjournment prayed for and accordingly reject the same and dismiss the appeal for default in appearance in terms of Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
-
1994 (6) TMI 100
... ...
... ... ..... culminated in an order or a decision either in favour of the assessee or against him and the competent authority before passing the order on each of the show cause notices has to apply his mind to the facts as set out in each of the show cause notices even if the authority chooses to pass a single order on a number of show cause notices issued. This common order has to be taken to be consisting of orders on each of the show cause notices. Therefore, as many appeals as show cause notices have been decided in the order will have to be filed. 5. emsp We, therefore, are of the view that number of appeals to be filed should be as many as the number of show cause notices in respect of which orders have been passed. It was pointed out to the learned Counsel to relate this appeal to any one of the show cause notices decided by the impugned order and it is open to the appellant to file supplementary appeals in respect of the remaining cases and seek condonation of delay under the law.
-
1994 (6) TMI 99
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and the applicants directed to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty. 3. emsp On hearing both sides and carefully considering their submissions, we are of the view that the merits of the matter regarding classification of the product can be gone into in detail with reference to HSN, Catalogues of the product etc. at the time of final hearing of the appeal. However, the applicants have made out a strong prima facie on limitation in view of the approved classification lists describing the item, RT 12 returns as assessed, and the entire material was before the Department regarding the item and therefore, it cannot be said that there has been any deliberate misclassification of the product warranting invocation of the extended period of limitation. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay the recovery thereof pending the appeal. 4. Appeal is listed for final hearing on 29-6-1994 alongwith other matters involving the similar issues.
-
1994 (6) TMI 98
Appellate order - Compliance of within time bound frame ... ... ... ... ..... ities take the orders passed by the Tribunal in a too casual manner. Whenever any order is passed by a superior court, lower authorities are duty bound to obey the orders passed by the superior court. We shall appreciate that in future Revenue authorities are prompt enough to give consequential effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the sides, the Revenue Secretary (Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India) and also to Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs. 5. emsp In view of the above-cited decisions it is seen that the Order of the Tribunal has to be respected by the Collector and therefore, we order that in terms of our Order dated 13-2-1994 the amounts in question be released in favour of the applicant Company forthwith and at any rate not later than 27-6-1994. Let a copy of this order be served on the Revenue, applicant and others concerned expeditiously without any delay.
........
|
