|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 489 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Register of director, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... by the petitioners at that stage to find out the fate of the forms submitted on June 10, 1992. Even no prompt steps were taken after C.P. No. 30 of 1993 was filed. It was only when decision was rendered in appeal by the Madras High Court, which was preferred against the order passed in C.P. No. 29 of 1992 that during the pendency of C.P. No. 30 of 1993, the present petition was filed. The petitioners have had an opportunity of establishing their rights in the proceedings pending before the competent authority, which they failed to avail of. In the facts and circumstances aforementioned we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners in the instant case merely on the ground that there has been no strict compliance by Registrar with the guidelines contained in circular dated October 24, 1961, by accepting Form No. 32 filed by respondent No. 4 and in not taking on record various forms submitted by the petitioners group on June 10, 1992. Dismissed. Rule is discharged.
-
1996 (9) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent-company was guilty of hiding the special interest of its director Shri Arvind Mafatlal from the shareholders while circulating the explanatory statement supporting the Scheme and whether thereby the voting by the equity shareholders got vitiated?
Whether the Scheme is unfair and unreasonable to the minority shareholders represented by the appellant?
Whether the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation was unfair and amounted to suppression of minority shareholders represented by the appellant and hence, liable to be rejected?
Whether separate meeting of minority shareholders represented by the appellant was required to be convened on the basis that the appellant's group represented a special class of equity shareholders?
Whether the exchange ratio of two equity shares of MIL for five equity shares of MFL was ex facie unfair and unreasonable to the equity shareholders of MIL and consequently, the Scheme of amalgamation on that account was liable to be rejected?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Management of the company is not at all a germane consideration for the Scheme. Conse-quently, whether the management remains with Arvind Mafatlal or in future may get changed and go in the hands of the appellant is not a consideration which has any linkage or nexus with the Scheme. Conse-quently, the interest of Arvind Mafatlal in the shareholding or likely future impact thereon by the litigation was de hors the Scheme in question and was not required to be placed before the voters. The first point for determination is, therefore, answered in the negative.
The appellant's own conduct, therefore, belies his apprehension that the Scheme as proposed was in any way unfair to him or that there were any mala fides behind the Scheme attributable to Shri Arvind Mafatlal who is the director of the transferee-company. The second point for determination, therefore, also is found to be factually not sustainable. It is, therefore, held that the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement is neither unfair nor unreasonable to the minority share-holders represented by the appellant.
When the Scheme of Compromise and Arrangement was cleared and proposed by the board of directors of both the transferor and transferee-companies and also at the stage when the Scheme was put to vote before the meeting of equity shareholders forming a common class of which the appellant was also a member though a minority member. Consequently, point No. 3 will also have to be answered in the negative on the same lines and for the same reasons on the basis of which point No. 2 is answered.
Unless a separate and different type of Scheme of Compromise is offered to a sub-class of a class of creditors or sharehold-ers otherwise equally circumscribed by the class no separate meeting of such sub-class of the main class of members or creditors is required to be convened. On the facts of the present case the appellant has not been able to make out a case for holding a separate meeting of dissenting minority equity shareholders represented by him. The fourth point for determination therefore, is answered in the negative
There is no substance in this contention canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the exchange ratio was ex facie unfair to the equity shareholders of the transferee-company. The fifth point for determination is also, therefore, answered in the negative.
-
1996 (9) TMI 487 - SUPREME COURT
Attachment of properties of notified person - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Since the Special Court has proceeded upon the basis that the appellant is 'genuinely seeking release of an income which he is earning from his services', that the same is not subject to attachment under section 3(3) and that he is entitled to open a bank account for the purpose of depositing such income (and such income alone). The Custodian shall be entitled to inspect this bank account and take action in such manner as the deems fit against the appellant if it be found that other monies have been deposited in the bank. The appellant may now draw the arrears of his remuneration from the company.
-
1996 (9) TMI 463 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by department ... ... ... ... ..... ointed day, or (b) the Collector (Appeals) under Section 35A is not legal or proper, direct any Central Excise Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the authorised officer) to appeal on his behalf to the Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, the Customs and Excise Revenues Appellate Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Customs and Excise Revenue Appellate Tribunal Act 1986, against such order.) rdquo 4. emsp It is clear from the Section that the Collector who authorise to file an appeal to make up his mind and make a clear opinion where the order passed by the authorities below is proper or not. On going through the order it is not clear whether the Collector has applied his mind before filing of the appeal. Since the authorisation is not in proper form we concur with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents with respect to the preliminary objection and accordingly we hold that the appeal is not maintainable.
-
1996 (9) TMI 455 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - Cotemporaneous imports - Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ption fine as per the practice of the customs. It is seen that in a majority of the cases the levy of redemption fine is 75 . In addition, it is seen that because of the heavy redemption fine imposed on the appellant they could not clear the goods and the demurrage has already raised to more than Rs. 5 lakhs. Further there was a decrease in the rate of duty in view of the Finance Bill introduced in the Parliament. These are all make the circumstances which are in favour of the appellant. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstance of this case, as narrated above, we are of the view that the value as declared by the appellant at US 900 per M.T. is to be accepted and in facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine should be reduced to 75 of the c.i.f. value. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we reduce the penalty to a sum of Rs.1.00 lac (Rupees one lac). The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. We order accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 446 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... cision while rejecting the appeals. 8. emsp A contention has been raised before us that the observations in the Tribunal rsquo s order like no housewife using Pan chutney with eatables and is not being placed on the dining table do not find any (sic) contention is not correct. During the arguments in the appeal, it had been admitted that Pan chutney has no other use except as an accompaniment to Pan. It is not used with any food item. That being so, the observations objected to are only illustrative of the theme of the product in question not being chutney of the type of sauce or ketchup and not a separate independent finding. It is not as if the ultimate finding has been based only on the question whether a housewife uses it with eatables and whether it is kept on the dining table. 9. emsp We have passed this order in amplification of our earlier order in response to the appellants rsquo application for rectification indicating the reasons for our decision more specifically.
-
1996 (9) TMI 442 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Adjudication - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... rsement made thereunder. On the contrary, the appellant has now produced an affidavit from the foreign manufacturer. In this view of the matter, we find that there is an acceptable evidence-produced by the department to increase the value either in the form of a quotation or a price list or any other contemporaneous imports. They have also not produced any evidence with respect to the value of any comparable goods. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. There is also no evidence or an allegation against the appellant that they have made any extra remittance in respect of these goods. Accordingly, on the available evidence on record, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. We make it clear that in case at some point of time if the department can get hold of any such evidence or any price list, the department is at liberty to take further action in accordance with law. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 440 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... days ago. In the background of this admission, it proceeded to consider the claim subsequently made that the currency was obtained from legitimate sources as evidenced by the income tax return. It said that in view of the admission already made in the statement, a heavy duty is cast on the appellant to establish that the source of acquisition of the currency is not the one initially admitted he had failed to do so. In other words, even despite the admission contained in the statement dated 15-2-1991 which was held to be unretracted, the Bench still proceeded to consider and weigh the subsequent evidence cited by the applicant. It is therefore wrong factually to say that the Bench had gone on the basis of inconsistencies in the defence. The burden of proving that the gold was not smuggled was on the appellant, in view of the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act. 13. ensp emsp We therefore do not find that any question of law arises for reference. Application dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 439 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... s cannot be said to be fitted together to form a whole because neither they are incorporated one in the other nor mounted one on the other or mounted on a common base or frame or in a common housing. 19. emsp This leaves us with the description of the set of items put together as an integrated unit, the components of which together act as a plant for converting the nylon waste into nylon chips and for this purpose its various components are joint or connected together to work in a coordinated way. This is acceptable. But in that case each of the items will have to be treated separately on its merits. When so treated each one of them by itself does not manufacture or produce a commodity although it plays its assigned role in the ultimate production of the commodity by the integrated plant unit. 20. emsp In view of the above position, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The classification of the Items under 84.59(1) is confirmed and the appeal is rejected.
-
1996 (9) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... r or otherwise. In the instant case his authorisation is not proper and he has not made up his mind with reference to the legality of the order. The authorisation as such is not proper. 3. emsp CEGAT (Procedure) Rules also prescribe that appeal should be accompained with the proper authorisation at the time of filing an appeal. 4. emsp However, when the matter had come up for consideration on the last two occasions, in view of the discrepancy in the authorisation, the Bench directed the D.R. to get the relevant note sheet order to ascertain the factual position. Today nothing has been produced in support of the contention but Shri P. Das, ld. SDR submitted that it is only a procedural mistake and that can be rectified. Tribunal has been consistently taking the view unless proper authorisation is filed by the Collector, appeal as such is not maintainable. In the circumstances, we are dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for want of proper authorisation. Order accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 437 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... o. 4 of Notification 80/90, which would mean that they would bear a rate of duty at concessional rate of 20 per cent. It is said before us that this order has attained finality having not been appealed against. This would also go against invoking Rule 57C against this applicant. However, the fact remains that this applicant had also been found to issue gate passes showing the consignee as the applicant MUL when there was in fact no clearance of the goods outside their factory at all. In that context, so far as provisions of Section 35F are concerned, pre-deposit by this applicant will also be called for. Accordingly, we direct that for hearing of appeal, the applicant, BSL should pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 5 crore on or before 15-10-1996 and on compliance with this direction, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty is dispensed with and recovery stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Matters to come up for ascertaining compliance with this order on 28-10-1996.
-
1996 (9) TMI 436 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Valuation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e declared was not acceptable. Therefore, the enhancement also fails. 7. emsp After adjudication order the appellant wrote to the Additional Collector surrendering the goods on the ground of delay in passing the adjudication order leading to cancellation of the export order. In this view the question of enhancement also would not arise. 8. emsp What survives for consideration is the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant. Penalty was imposed on the basis of multiplicity of violations of law, namely, mis-declaration of the nature of goods, mis-declaration of value and ITC angle. Of the three aspects, former two do not survive and the ITC angle alone survives. In this light, we think it is necessary to reduce the quantum of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- and we do so. The impugned order is modified by setting aside the determination of value and by reducing the quantum of penalty from Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 9. emsp The appeal is allowed to this extent.
-
1996 (9) TMI 435 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... above does not seem to be of any help. It is needless to point out that order passed by the Tribunal disposing of the appeal is final. The Tribunal does not have powers to review its own order. Limited powers are vested purely for rectification of mistakes apparent on record. Such mistakes should be on the face of the record and not to be sought to be brought about by tortuous arguments calling for reappreciation of the evidence and points of law, which would amount to review. Moreover, a rectification application is maintainable only in respect of the order-in-appeal passed by the Tribunal and not on the order dismissing their earlier rectification application. In this context, we approvingly adopt the reasoning of the Tribunal in the case of Berger Paints India v. CC reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 479. 6. emsp In the result, we find that a second rectification more or less reiterating the grounds of the first application cannot be sustained. Hence we dismiss the application.
-
1996 (9) TMI 434 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Inputs used in duty free portion of final products not eligible for credit ... ... ... ... ..... e aforesaid clarification by the Department, we see no reason why the assessee cannot make a debit entry in the credit account before removal of the exempted final product. If this debit entry is permissible to be made, credit entry for the duties paid on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the final exempted product will stand deleted in the accounts of the assessee. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the assessee has taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the final exempted product under Rule 57A. In other words, the claim for exemption of duty on the disputed goods cannot be denied on the plea that the assessee has taken credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in manufacture of these goods. rdquo 6. emsp In view of the above, the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta is not correct and is set aside. As a consequence, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 433 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Machines brought into India for display in exhibition ... ... ... ... ..... applicable. 5. emsp We have considered the pleas made by both the sides. We observe that in the present case the respondents have been issued a licence which has been endorsed for its validity for importation of the machines in question which was imported in 1994. The importation therefore can be taken to be covered by this licence which has been issued under EPCG scheme. The appellants therefor would be eligible to the benefits of concessional assessment as applicable on the date of importation of the machinery. On that date Notification 160/92 extended the benefit for assessement at the rate of 15 . This is what the learned lower authority hasallowed. In that view of the matter we hold that the learned lower authority has rightly interpreted the scope of licence issued and the rate is applicable in respect of the goods. The ratio of the decisions cited are not applicable to the facts of the case. We therefore find no force in the plea of the Revenue and dismiss the appeal.
-
1996 (9) TMI 432 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... rned Counsel rsquo s contentions are correct. 11. emsp Insofar as the Finned Tubes are concerned the authorities below have not indicated the basis for their findings. The order is therefore virtually a non-speaking one on this point. The contention of the appellants is capable of verification. Therefore we set aside the impugned order insofar as it relates to this item and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration after necessary verification in this regard. 12. emsp Before passing such an order the appellants may be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter and produce such material as may be required for the purpose. 13. emsp Insofar as the second item GFRP Fan Housing Segments are concerned there is no dispute that these are parts of the Cooling Tower as such they are obviously required to be classified under the same Heading i.e. 84.19 in view of Section note 2 (b). It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is accepted in the above terms.
-
1996 (9) TMI 431 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... are to the effect that in the duty payable on less than 25 Kg. pack, duty element on container is not to be included. The Collector (Appeals) will have to examine whether this is the meaning and content of the Govt. of lndia rsquo s decision and the Ministry rsquo s letter. If that is the meaning of the clarification or decision, the dispute raised by the appellant will have to be decided in the light of such clarification. If the content and meaning of the decision or the letter are contrary to what the appellant is canvassing naturally, the Collector (Appeals) will not accept the appellant rsquo s contention. 5. emsp The impugned common order passed by the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the cases are remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) for decision afresh after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this order. 6. emsp The appeals are allowed as indicated.
-
1996 (9) TMI 430 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... .79 which is for machines, mechanical appliances having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in the Chapter. If that was not acceptable to the Commissioner, he was required to consider the other contention of classification under Heading 70.14 glass fibres and articles thereof. Since the Commissioner has not given any finding with regard to the eligibility of classification under that heading for these goods, we consider it appropriate that he should be given one more opportunity to consider this contention. 5. emsp Advocate for the appellant stated that he did not question the classification decided by the Commissioner under Heading 39.17 of pipes and tubes and fittings therefore and had already deposited the duty demanded for these goods. 6. emsp We therefore set aside the remaining portion of the impugned order and allow the appeal. The Commissioner shall after hearing the appellant decide on the eligibility of the goods for classification under 70.14.
-
1996 (9) TMI 429 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... we find that the items like steel plates, ceramic tiles, steel bars etc. are more in the nature of constructional materials. Prima facie, we may not be able to appreciate the arguments that they are machinery or accessory or parts of machines to be construed to be eligible capital goods. In the circumstances balance of convenience seems to be in favour of Revenue. They have to freeze the entire disputed amount in their Modvat account without utilisation. If they do not have balance (as stated by them) they should make a cash deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs and furnish a bank guarantee for another sum fo Rs. 7 lakhs within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which their appeals are liable to be dismissed. They should report compliance in the first week of January, 1997 failing which their appeal are liable to be dismissed. On compliance with this direction, there shall be stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit of the balance of duty amount.
-
1996 (9) TMI 428 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ts. The fact that for performing this function, it draws power from a circuit of which the voltage is less than 400 should not disqualify it for classification under the heading in question. A distinction has to be drawn, in other words, between the circuit of which the instrument becomes a part when it is prepared for use and the circuit in which it is actually used. This view finds support from the fact that virtually all oscilloscopes used in the country would be plugged into circuits of a voltage of not exceeding 250. The reference to the circuit voltage of 400 in the heading would become meaningless if the criteria set out above are applied. The correct criterion, in our view is the voltage of the circuit the electric quantities of which the oscilloscope measures so checks. There being no dispute that this voltage exceeded 400V in the present case, the instrument would be entitled to classification under Heading 90.28(2). 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
............
|
