|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... importer cannot have a claim for absolute exemption from payment of customs duty as of right and therefore the contention that the writ petitioners were not entitled to seek Mandamus may not be held to be incorrect but since the benefit of the exemption notification has been given to all other importers similarly situated, its claim to the petitioner was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17.It is now well settled that in a given case this court has the power to give such direction as could be issued by the respondents themselves. 18.This application is, therefore, allowed, the order dated 31-7-1995 as contained in Annexure D to the affidavit-in-opposition is set aside and the matter is remitted back to, the concerned respondents who are directed to pass a similar order as has been done in the case of other consignees who are similarly situated to that of the petitioner. 19.In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 144 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... and circumstances of this case was not warranted. 5.For the foregoing reasons I allow this Writ petition and quash and set aside the order dated March 14, 1995. Appeal No. E. 131 of 1989 shall stand restored to its original number before Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law. It shall be open to the petitioner to apply for dispensing with the requirement of depositing the amount in question and it shall be entirely upto to the Tribunal to decide the question of any interim relief purely on its merits. Neither the disposal of the appeal nor the consideration of stay matter shall be influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment. No part of this judgment shall be construed as experion of opinion about the merits of the appeal or about any interim relief. 6.There will be no order as to costs. 7.All parties concerned to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1997 (2) TMI 143 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... l claims for refund except where levy is held to be unconstitutional, to be preferred and adjudicated upon under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subject to claimant establishing that burden of duty has not been passed on to third party. Hence the appeal has to be allowed and the judgment and decree under appeal are to be set aside and the suit itself has to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff was not able to say anything more in the light of the judgment mentioned above, except stating that appropriate orders may be passed. 2. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court aforementioned, we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 15-11-1990 passed by the learned single judge in C.S. No. 206 of 1982 1992 (57) E.L.T. 227 (Mad.) are set aside and the said suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... il the said letter while impugning the assessment. As regards the question of limitation, learned Counsel for the respondents gracefully conceded that the appeal if filed within such period as may be prescribed in this behalf by this Court, the Respondent-Department shall not oppose the same on the question of limitation. 11.In the result, I without touching the merits of the petition, dispose of the same with the direction that the petitioner may file appropriate appeal against the order impugned within two months from today. If appeal is preferred within this period, the respondent shall not oppose the appeal on the ground of bar of limitation. In such appeal it will be open for the petitioner to assail the letter (Annexure D) also. Further, in case the petitioner suffers any adverse decision in the appeal, he shall be free to resort to such remedy as may be available to him in law. With these observations this petition stands disposed of but without any order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ected to pay the entire duty as assessed, we are of the view that it is necessary that the appellant seeking waiver under Section 35F of the Act, must place before the Authority the latest financial position. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant should be given an opportunity to produce the latest balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending 31-3-1996. 6. We, accordingly, allow the appeal set aside the order dated 6-2-1997 passed in W.P. 1412 of 1997 and also quash the order dated 7-1-1997 passed by the 1st respondent and remit the matter to the Appellate Authority with liberty to the petitioner/appellant to produce the latest balance sheet before the Appellate Authority and after that, the appellate Authority shall decide the application for waiver in accordance with law after hearing the appellant. The latest balance sheet shall be produced within a fortnight from today. The C.M.P. also stands disposed of. However, we make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 140 - SC ORDER
Remand - Powers of ... ... ... ... ..... is under appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority is also invested with the power to pass such order as it deems fit. Both these portions of the aforesaid provision, read together, necessarily imply that the appellate authority has the power to set aside the decision which is under appeal before it and to remand the matter to the authority below for fresh decision. 3. We may point out that the respondent has not appeared but has filed an affidavit which suggests that the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal had also taken the view that the appellate authority, on an application made to it by another person in the same position as the respondent, could not have remanded this matter. If that order of the Tribunal remains in operation, the authority below shall, notwithstanding this order, not be entitled to proceed. 4. With this reservation, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set aside. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... as also not been disputed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the same principle is not to be applied as has been done in other case relating to the same petitioner which was dealt with by the same Tribunal as appears in Annexure 11 to the writ petition. 5.But there is no reason as to why the petitioner will be delaying the appeal and the learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly contended that the petitioners will not take unnecessarily adjournment in the matter of hearing of the appeal. 6.In view of the aforesaid, I allow the writ petition. The impugned order dated 3rd July, 1996 is modified to this extent that the petitioner company is granted total exemption and its appeal before the Tribunal will be heard and disposed of on merit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner company will not be granted unnecessary adjournment in any event. The stay order dated 3-9-1996 is hereby vacated.
-
1997 (2) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. - Words and Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... the show cause notice in its entirety would clearly show that in substance it was addressed to the petitioner-company and by way of abundant caution, it also mentioned in detail the names of the Directors and also the other officers allegedly involved in the evasion of excise duty of a huge amount of Rs. 28 crores and odd. Even if it were to be a civil suit, the service of notice on a Director under Order XXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure would amount to service of notice on the company Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. v. Union of India - (1962) 32 Company Cases P. 845. That being the case, the service of show cause notice on the Chairman of the petitioner-company setting out in detail the alleged acts of evasion of excise duty could not be said to be an act without jurisdiction. 10.We, therefore, hold that the plea of want of jurisdiction canvassed for issue of a writ of prohibition is totally unfounded. The writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed with costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Penalty - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... e of the goods, which the applicant was able to secure in this case, they could not have escaped an order of confiscation and imposition of consequent redemption fine and it is only on account of the fact that the clearance has been made even before the Department came to know of the fraudulent act of ante-dating the bill of lading by which it was able to get the goods imported and cleared, the Department had no other go, but to impose only a personal penalty. Viewing this case and the facts in this context also, we are of the view that no exception could be taken to the imposition of personal penalty in question or the quantum thereof upon the applicant. 13.For all the reasons stated above, we answer the question referred to us for our consideration by holding that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no mens rea as such was required as a condition precedent for levying a personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT
Weighing system ... ... ... ... ..... judgment did not lay down that weighbridges were excisable goods. 4. Having regard to the judgment in the case of Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., it is not necessary for us to go into this writ petition. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file appeals against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirming the show cause notices aforementioned. The appeals shall be decided in the light of the judgment in the case of Mittal Engineering Works and the other judgments cited therein. If the petitioners file the appeals within 8 weeks from today, the bar of limitation shall not be raised and the appeals shall be decided on merits. Having regard to the facts of this case, we direct that the pre-deposit requirement for the hearing of the appeals shall not be insisted upon. 5. We may add that in giving these directions we have the concurrence of learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 135 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... already disposed of the matter shall go back to the Asstt. Commissioner for examining the matter in the light of the same. If the appeal is still pending before the Tribunal (Appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 19-4-1987 passed by the Asstt. Collector (Appeals) the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible. At the same time pendency of the appeal shall not stand in the way of the Commissioner proceeding with the matter in accordance with the law, pursuant to this order. 2. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT
Refund - Bar of unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... the High Court. 2. So far as the period prior to Feburary 9, 1982 is concerned, it is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the assessee that it is barred by limitation and refund claimed in that behalf cannot be entertained. We are, therefore, concerned in this appeal only with the period February 9, 1982 to August 9, 1982. In view of the fact that the refund proceedings were pending on the date of the judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. etc. etc. v. Union of India etc. etc. 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) 1996 (9) SCALE 457 , the said judgment and the format order a copy of which is enclosed herewith shall govern the said refund claim. In other words, the assessee has to establish that he has not passed on the burden of the duty to others. For this purpose, the matter has to go back to the Assistant Collector in terms of judgment in Mafatlal Industries and the format order abovementioned 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 133 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Appellate Tribunal - Judicial Discipline ... ... ... ... ..... 6 and should have decided the stay matter accordingly. 3.In this view of the matter therefore the order passed on 9-2-1996 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. 4.This petition for the foregoing reasons is allowed. It is directed that a Division Bench of the Tribunal shall decide the stay matter in line and conformity with the observations and directions contained in the order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal passed on 4-1-1996. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as any express of opinion by this Court regarding the merits of the case. 5.It is hoped and expected that the Division Bench shall decide this matter very expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. 6.Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed the allegations made in the petition need not be deemed to have been accepted by the respondents. 7.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 8.All parties are to act on a singed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1997 (2) TMI 132 - SC ORDER
Valuation of Photocopying machines ... ... ... ... ..... g that plates and black shields are not parts of photocopying machines. No interference being called for, the appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 131 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... nto the question of validity of the show case notices, dispose of these petitions with the under noted directions (a) The petitioners shall be free to submit reply to the notices (Annexure H), if not furnished so far, or additional reply if felt necessary, within 30 days from today and may also raise therein the pleas of jurisdiction as well as of discrimination (b) The petitioners may also apply to the appropriate authority for permission to lead evidence and to requisition the records pertaining to levy of duty on Remington and Godrej for proper disposal of Notices (Annexure H) and (c) The petitioners in the event of adverse decisions by the authority, may have recourse to such remedies as may be available to them in law. 10. All the petitions thus stand disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners. 11. This order be retained in MP No. 124/91 and a copy each be placed in MP Nos. 125/91 and 126/91.
-
1997 (2) TMI 130 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Import licence - Revalidation - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... nts without dove-tailing both in the same licence, the authorities could not have been oblivious to the substantial rights of the parties even during the original licence in terms of its automatic extension of period of validation by virtue of Paragraph 207 (2) of the Hand Book. The authorities below including the Tribunal, therefore, in our view, were not justified in clubbing the two distinct entities of the licence into one to negate the substantial rights of the applicant secured under the original licence, itself. 7.For all the reasons stated above, we answer the question in favour of the applicant and against the revenue by holding that the endorsement dated 15-1-1995 made by the licensing authority on the licence dated 16-1-1984 made while revalidating the licence, could not have the effect of extinguishing the original validity of the licence for the shipment of the goods in terms of the policy prior to revalidation up to 31-1-1985. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 129 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Customs - Imported goods - Clearance for home consumption ... ... ... ... ..... the Department was well with in its right in ignoring the said order of subsequent variation or cancellation and taking the stand and proceeding on the footing that such alteration or cancellation was not a valid one, conferring any rights upon the applicant. The subsequent order of cancellation which appears to have been made by the proper officer who earlier made the order Out of customs charge , in the absence of any authority or power conferred on him, must be viewed as a nullity and nonest in the eye of law and consequently the applicants could not claim any rights on a such void or illegal order. 8. For all the reasons stated above, we answer to the question referred to us in both the above references, by holding that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department was right and well-merited in holding that the cancellation of the Out of customs charge order originally made under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be considered to be valid. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 128 - SUPREME COURT
Whether copper rods and bars manufactured by the appellant could properly be classified under Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Item 68 thereof?
Held that:- Tariff Item 26A(1) refers to a product in any crude form including ingots, bars, blocks, slabs, billets, shots and pellets. Under the ISI Standard bar/rod has been described as any extruded, drawn, cold or hot rolled, forged, cast or combination of any of these processes of solid section supplied in straight length, whose width or distance between parallel faces is greater by 6 mm and the sub-entries following the same show that they can be in different shapes. Therefore, the term `bar' in Entry 26A(1) would also include a rod. Thus the authorities below were wrong in classifying the goods as falling within Tariff Item 68 and not under Item 26A(1). Appeal allowed.
So far as the question of refund is concerned, it will have to be determined in accordance with the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Mafatlal's case [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
-
1997 (2) TMI 127 - SC ORDER
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t stated on behalf of the Department was that some correspondence was going on between the two parties about the price list. That, however, does not constitute misrepresentation. The limitation of six months imposed by the statute for issuing a show cause notice is fully applicable to this case. 3. We are of the view that on the facts of this case, the Tribunal has come to a right decision. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 126 - SUPREME COURT
Polyester film ... ... ... ... ..... e Collector has not found that the appellants, in fact, did not subject the said polyester film to these processes but has, on the basis of personal knowledge, concluded that the said polyester film is audio magnetic tape. The Tribunal has not dealt with the appellants case in regard to these processes, but has affirmed the Collector s finding. As to whether the said polyester film falls within Item 48 of Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I or under Item 607 of Appendix 3, Part-A will depend upon whether the said polyester film is audio magnetic tape in jumbo rolls or is metallised polyester film to which processes have to be applied for conversion into audio magnetic tape. To determine this the matter has to be remanded to the Tribunal. Based upon this determination, the Tribunal will decide its classification. 4. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to be disposed of as aforesaid. 5. No order as to costs.
............
|
