|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 563 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... v) the question of what is reasonable cause is not a question of law but a question of fact. 27.. No question of law remained. The application for revision therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. This is a sales tax reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 at the instance of Revenue and following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in holding that a vertical pump is covered by entry No. 12 of Part IV of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958? 2.. Brief facts giving rise to the case are that the assessee deals in the electrical goods specially coolers and pump, etc. The assessing officer, during the assessment period November 2, 1986 to October 22, 1987 found the total turnover to the extent of Rs. 2,58,808 and on that basis, determined the tax to the
-
1996 (9) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT
It was held by the Supreme Court that a workman might be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employers premises in some special cases. The facts and circumstances of each case would have to be examined whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of a workman, keeping in view at all times this theory of notional extension. A workman is not in the course of his employment from moment he leaves his home and is on his way to his work. He certainly is in the course of his employment if he reaches the place of work or a point or an are which comes within the theory of notional extension.
-
1996 (9) TMI 561 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not included in the price is to be added to the price. This appeal is the ratio of the two judgments cited before us. The only claim made by the appellants in these cases is that the payment was not towards commission alone but that it included installation charges and technical advice also. On record there is a letter from M/s. J. Mahabeer, dated 12-9-90 addressed to the Customs authorities in which it has been claimed that commission and all other charges are being shown as lsquo commission rsquo in their account. This being the case there is no warrant in the claim that commission as paid is divisible on 3 counts. The amount collected as commission in both cases was correctly held to be includible in the assessable value. Since the importers had paid, the charge there is no substance in their claim that the payment was not in their knowledge. We find no infirmity in the two orders passed by the Collector. We uphold the orders in both the cases and reject both the appeals.
-
1996 (9) TMI 560 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... factually improper when the present case as there is no indication in the decision that the assessment made finally had been stayed or made provisionally whereas such is not the case with the appellant which have been granted the consequential relief as a result of the Tribunal order in their favour. Ld. Counsel had ruled that the appellants in seeking to retain credit balance was only as a protection against the duty demand in future following the outcome of Supreme Court decision in their appeal pending there. This however is not covered by any provisions of the modvat facility and it will also be reasonable to expect that if the ultimate decision is against the appellant and holding the product is dutiable, it will be open for the appellant to take such plea as in law available to them seeking the Modvat credit in such a contingency. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1996 (9) TMI 559 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Loan licensee - Manufacturer - Loan licensee - Appeal to Tribunal - Difference of opinion - Adjudication – Burden of proof - Demand - Limitation
-
1996 (9) TMI 558 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... monoblock motors and could not be considered as components of general purpose Motors and therefore fell within the same Tariff Item as monoblock pumps. The question has been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. It is a question of fact and we do not propose to entertain it at this stage. 6. It is then urged that stators and rotors should be considered under Tariff Item 68, which is a residuary item. The Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that what was manufactured by the appellant were electric motors. It is only in the alternative that it considered the submission of the appellant that the goods should be regarded as rotors and stators. In the circumstances recourse cannot be had to Tariff Item 68 by the appellant. rdquo 13. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find that the ld. Collector (Appeals) had not decided the matter correctly and we set aside his order. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 557 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rotors and Stators - Classification of ... ... ... ... ..... r case wherein the Tribunal had rejected the appellant rsquo s contention that they had mistakenly stated that electric motors had been used for mono block pumps whereas only rotors and stators, which were integral component parts of mono block pumps, have been used. The Supreme Court observed that it was a question of fact and did not entertain the plea of the appellants before them. 7. emsp In the particular case before us both the lower authorities had taken a view that the assessee was required to pay duty on stators and rotors under T.I. 30D of the Tariff and that the electric motor did not come into existence independently in an identifiable manner in the sense that the same was not separable easily and could not be marketed as electric motors. 8. emsp Viewed in this light and taking all the relevant considerations into account, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise and as a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1996 (9) TMI 556 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stainless steel strips and patta/patti ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd. - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 578 (T) the Tribunal had observed that stainless steel patties in question are of irregular shape as well as uneven thickness and the products are neither in coil nor in flattened from. Thus the goods do not justify the definition of lsquo strip rsquo and are to be rightly classified under sub-item (8) of Item 25 of Central Excise Tariff (old). This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Narayani Udyog Ltd. reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. 595 (T). 4. emsp There is nothing on record to show that the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) were not correct when he observed that if a product is held to be a lsquo strip rsquo under tariff item No. 25(12)(i) it must strictly conform to the definition of lsquo strip rsquo as given in the tariff. 5. emsp We find that there is no material on record to disturb the findings of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result this appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1996 (9) TMI 554 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Manufacture - Footwear - Hand-made footwear - Valuation - Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of
-
1996 (9) TMI 552 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by department - Authorisation to appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ould be in a proper form with reference to the terms as envisaged under Section 35B(2) of the CESA in a series of cases. In the case of CCE v. Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. reported in 1989 (42) E.LT. 247A it was clearly held that forming of requisite opinion by the Collector that the lower order was not legal and proper and authorising the Central Excise officer to file an appeal is the pre-condition for at the time of filing the appeal. 5. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the relevant authorisation and note sheet order, we are of the view that the Collector simply authorised the Superintendent to file an appeal without applying her mind. She should have indicated whether order passed by the authorities below is legal or otherwise before filing the appeal. In the absence of such averment as envisaged in Section 35B(2) of CESA and since the authorisation is neither legal nor proper, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 544 - SUPREME COURT
Whether action purported to have been taken under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be said to have been taken within the period of limitation prescribed thereunder?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Commissioner had to make up his mind whether or not he considered it necessary to initiate action under section 22-A of the Act. In this behalf he accepted the suggestion in paragraph 3 of the departmental note extracted earlier and agreed that he could not initiate action under section 22-A. Whether he was right in doing so or not is not relevant but it is obvious that he did not initiate any action even after the receipt of the records for the reason mentioned in paragraph 3 of the departmental note. Therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the reason trotted out in the show cause notice for saving the action from being barred by limitation has no basis and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned decision in this behalf is clearly erroneous.
-
1996 (9) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the publication of the exemption notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, as required by section 11(1) of the Act, is mandatory or merely directory?
Whether the power conferred thereunder is a species of delegated legislation or is it conditional legislation?
Whether the power of conditional legislation can be exercised with retrospective effect?
Whether the requirement of “laying” before the Legislature is mandatory?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The requirement of “laying” prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 11 is not mandatory and an order of exemption under section 11 cannot be said to be ineffective or unenforceable for the reason of “non-laying” as required by section 11(2) of the Act.
-
1996 (9) TMI 529 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Moulds - Copper Mould tubes - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ginal classification adopted at the time of clearance of the goods and the examiner rsquo s report is also not before us for appreciating this point. We notice that for the purpose of granting the benefit of notification, if the description in the chapter heading is identical with the description of goods specified in the notification then the benefit is required to be extended. In this case, we notice that both the authorities have not applied their mind and not given a reasoned order for that purpose. The impugned orders are required to be set aside and remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. As the matter is old one, the authorities may dispose of the case expeditiously. The appellants shall produce the necessary technical and documentary evidence before the original authorities and the authority shall keep in view the observations made in this order. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand to original authority, who shall dispose of the case as per law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a watery coconut could be taxed within the permissible restrictions as also the dried coconut that resulted from the drying of the same watery coconut?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Watery coconuts, therefore, can only be taxed within the restrictions imposed by section 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The notification dated 9th March, 1970, issued by the respondent-State, in so far as it seeks to tax watery coconuts at the rate of 7 per cent, must therefore, be struck down.
-
1996 (9) TMI 515 - SUPREME COURT
Non maintenance of stock register - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Unable to uphold the view that a defect in non-maintenance of stock register is only technical and so the turnover disclosed in the account books should be accepted. On the facts of a particular case, it is for the assessing authority to consider along with other materials disclosed in the case, to what extent the account books can be relied on for determining the turnover. In normal circumstances, the rejection of account books call for the estimation of the turnover to the best of judgment of the assessing authority. Having upheld that the account books of the assessee were liable to be rejected, the learned Judge of the High Court was wrong in holding that the defect is of a technical nature and the account books should be accepted.
-
1996 (9) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT
Liability to payment of tax on the transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of works contract and rate thereof
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. An agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that "having considered all aspects of the matter, a sale within the meaning of section 2(g) of the 1941 Act, namely, a transfer of property in goods supplied by the owner/contractee to the contractor for use in the execution of a works contract takes place in the cases under our consideration, when such goods are actually used in the construction work provided prices of such goods are deducted from or adjusted against bills or dues of the contractor. Thus we do not think there is any case for interference under article 136 of the Constitution.
-
1996 (9) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the case of a company which owns or runs the factory, it is only a director of the company who can be notified as the occupier of the factory within the meaning of proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act, or whether the company can nominate any other employee to be the occupier by passing a resolution to the effect that the said employee shall have "ultimate control over the affairs of the factory?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the case of a company, which owns a factory, it is only one of the directors of the company who can be notified as the occupier of the factory for the purposes of the Act and the company cannot nominate any other employee to be the occupier of the factory. Where the company fails to nominate one of its directors as the occupier of the factory, the Inspector of Factories shall be at liberty to proceed against any one of the directors of the company, treating him as the deemed occupier of the factory, for prosecution and punishment in case of any breach or contravention of the provisions of the Act or for offences committed under the Act.
Proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act is intra vires the substantive provision of section 2(n) of the Act.Proviso (ii) to section 2(n) is constitutionally valid and is not ultra vires articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The law laid down by the High Courts of Bombay, Orissa, Karnataka, Calcutta, Gauhati and Madras is not the correct law and the contrary view expressed by the High Courts of Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Patna is the correct enunciation of law in regard to the ambit and scope of proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act.
-
1996 (9) TMI 502 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Name of Company - Rectification of ... ... ... ... ..... stice, even though the limitation had already expired, I am unable to persuade myself on this issue. It is also curious to note in this connection that the petitioner company is having full knowledge of the incorporation of the 3rd respondent company. The fact that an agreement was reached on 4-2-1995 itself establishes that the petitioner company has sufficient knowledge. It did not make any repre-sentation or complaint to the Central Government within the period prescribed in section 22. It is not the case of the petitioner that it never knew the incorporation of the company till the expiry of one year. Having known that such a company is registered and having entered into an agreement, within one year of incorporation of 3rd respondent-company, I am satisfied that the company cannot make out a grievance at this late stage also. 9. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. SCL q MAY, 1997
-
1996 (9) TMI 491 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Meetings and Proceedings – Circulation of members’ resolution ... ... ... ... ..... tures for giving consent to petitioner No. 1 to pursue the matter and whether some of the members subsequently have withdrawn the consent as indicated in the letters filed as annexures to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2. It is, however, not in dispute that they have not signed as requisitionists and have allegedly given the necessary power in favour of petitioner No. 1 to represent them at the annual general meeting of the company. The expenses as envisaged have also not been deposited with the company. There does not seem to be compliance with the statutory provisions as contained in subsection (4) of section 188 of the Act. The questions of fact as raised cannot be adjudicated in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This will require appreciation of evidence and an appropriate alternative remedy can be the only answer. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 490 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Compensation for negligence ... ... ... ... ..... charged by the banks for advances and loans or on long-term deposits. The State Commission has awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent p.a., which, in our opinion, is quite just and reasonable. We, however, see no justification for the award of Rs. 20,000 as compensation in addition to interest. This appeal, therefore, is allowed to this extent and the order as regards the award of compensation of Rs. 20,000 is set aside. The order as regards the payment of interest of the rate of 15 per cent p.a. is upheld. 4. The UTI is directed to take urgent steps to deliver these units to the respondents, if not already delivered, and in any case, not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The interest on Rs. 30,000 at the rate of 15 per cent p.a. from June 1992 and up to the date of delivery of the unit certificates should also be paid simultaneously. In addition, the appellants shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of costs to the respondents. SCL q NOVEMBER, 1996
............
|
