|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 564
Classification of goods - Exemption notification - Interpretation of - Telephone parts ... ... ... ... ..... essed as an aid for interpreting a notification. In the present case, such a circumstance does not arise, as the notification merely refers to goods falling under Chapter 85.17. Admittedly the parts of goods falling under Chapter 85.17 are excluded from the ambit of the notification in question, as they are shown in S. No. 4 of the notification, which excludes the items in question from the ambit of the notification. By applying the legal fiction of Interpretative Rules, the imported items which are in the nature of sub-assemblies i.e. parts cannot be held to be goods falling under Chapter 85.17 as contended by the learned Advocate, in the light of the judgments noted above. Therefore, applying the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned DR, the conclusion arrived at by the Collector for denying the benefit of notification is required to be upheld. There is no other ground urged for consideration. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and hence the same is rejected.
-
1997 (3) TMI 563
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... dependently all of these, as a company court, I have been satisfied with the scheme proposed as a whole is just, fair and reasonable from the point of view of all concerned. Therefore, in my opinion, the present petitions require to be granted. They are hereby granted, by saying that, the proposed scheme is sanctioned by me. Any how, it shall have to be noticed that the proceedings initiated by the transferee-company having their registered office within the State of Rajasthan have initiated the necessary proceedings before the High Court of Rajasthan. The scheme of amalgamation would stand sanctioned, provided the said proceedings are decided in favour of the transferee-company and the scheme of amalgamation proposed under the present petition is recognised by the High Court of Rajasthan. On the completion of the process of amalgamation, both the transferor-companies shall stand dissolved without winding up. The petitions, therefore, stand allowed, with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 559
Demand - Adjudication - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... returns on the basis of approved classification list/price list. The appellants have been fastened extra duty liability without issue of a notice to them which is a mandatory requirement. 5. emsp In view of the above, we do not agree with the ld. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) that there was no need to issue a show cause notice or of a personal hearing in this case. As we have observed above, the assessment was not on the basis of the approved classification inasmuch as Assistant Collector had provisionally allowed the clearances at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per vehicle. The Superintendent had raised the demand on RT 12 returns. The Apex Court had held in the case of Samrat International - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.) that the remarks on the RT 12 returns are no substitute for the show cause notice. 6. emsp In view of the above, we do not agree with the view of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1997 (3) TMI 554
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments ... ... ... ... ..... d incidental expenses. In view of allowing Misc. Application No. 37 of 1991, Company Application No. 201 of 1996 is rejected. In Misc. Application No. 38 of 1991, it is directed that the property of Nutan Mills Ltd. should be sold through the sale committee consisting of official liquidator and the representatives of five secured creditors mentioned in the said application and the representative of the TLA but the chairman of the said sale committee should be the representative of the IRBI and the proclamation/advertisement should be issued in his name. Secured creditors are at liberty to nominate anybody on their behalf to the sale committee. In Misc. Application No. 38 of 1991, the IRBI to spend the money for advertisement/sale proclamation and incidental expenses. In view of allowing Misc. Application No. 38 of 1991, the Company Applications Nos. 202 of 1996 and 203 of 1996 are rejected. With the above directions, all the applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 548
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... f any agreement on the basis of usage and custom, the petitioner was entitled to interest. Taking into consideration all these facts, the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-company cannot be favourably considered. Bona fide dispute excludes the mala fides on the part of the person claiming exception for winding up of the company by reason of defence of bona fide dispute. In the present case the principal amount is admitted to have been paid, as has been reflected in the account books of the respondent-company and, as pleaded by the petitioner-company. On the face of the aforesaid facts on record, the respondent-company s defence comes within the bona fide dispute. No other point has been stressed. In view of the foregoing reasons, as the respondent-company has raised a bona fide dispute in its defence regarding the payment of interest claimed by the petitioner-company, the present petition even at this stage is disallowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 547
Winding up – Power of court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... , during cross-examination made it amply clear that he has approached this court with this application to get back his money and not make the persons who are alleged to have misapplied the funds of the company contribute to the assets of the company. Thus, the application itself is a result of misconception. Even if the contention of the applicant that misapplication will amount to misfeasance as laid down in Indo-Burma Industries Ltd., In re 1957 27 Comp. Cas. 390 (Cal) is accepted, in the absence of specific allegations which are necessary to pinpoint the misapplication or misappropriation by each of the respondents, the application cannot be entertained. This aspect has been reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. B.K. Bedi 1991 71 Comp. Cas. 101, following the decision in Official Liquidator v. Raghava Desikachar, AIR 1974 SC 2069 1975 45 Comp. Cas. 136. In the aforesaid circumstances, M.C.A. No. 33 of 1991 fails. It is dismissed. No costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 536
TURNOVER — SALE PRICE — SALE OF LIQUOR IN BOTTLES AND CRATES — DEPOSIT COLLECTED FROM PURCHASERS FOR BOTTLES AND CRATES — RETURNED UPON RETURN OF BOTTLES AND CRATES — DEPOSIT DOES NOT FORM PART OF SALE PRICE
-
1997 (3) TMI 529
Scrap or reprocessed granules covered by Notification No. 53/88-C.E. as deemed to be duty paid
-
1997 (3) TMI 528
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... derable time for the persons concerned to adopt the new system, we are in agreement with the counsel that no ordinary assessee would have been in a position to comprehend at the relevant time the correct implication of the changes made in Chapter 2(c) of Chapter 29 by the Finance Act, 1986 with effect from 13-5-86. We therefore hold that the demand for the period 1-3-86 to 30-4-88 by SCN dated 29-4-91 is not sustainable. 12. emsp Having regard to the above, we hold that the impugned order is hit by time-bar and has to be set aside. Since we hold that the SCN as well as the impugned order are vitiated on the ground of incorrect invokation of proviso to Section 11A(1). We do not consider it necessary to go into other arguments relating to valuation. 13. emsp As a result, A. Nos. 2132 and 2133/93-C which relate to valuation may be delinked and may be placed before the appropriate Bench. Registry to do the needful. 14. emsp Appeal No. E/1051/91-C is diposed of in the above terms.
-
1997 (3) TMI 516
Whether the considerations alone can be regarded as sufficient to make the impugned notifications immune from the challenge of hostile discrimination?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The justification advanced by the State of Rajasthan that as a result of the impugned notifications the State revenue had increased and thus they were beneficial to the State revenue, is not valid as the said notifications had the effect of creating a preference to cement manufactured and sold in Rajasthan and disadvantage for the sale of cement manufactured and sold in Gujarat and thus had the direct and immediate adverse effect on the free flow of trade. The said notifications, by dispensing with the requirement of furnishing declaration in C form, had the effect of facilitating evasion of payment of tax and were, therefore, also violative of the scheme of the constitutional provisions contained in Chapter XIII. Therefore, hold that the impugned notifications were void and, therefore, they are hereby quashed.
-
1997 (3) TMI 513
Whether, the purchases of African raw cashewnuts made by the assessees from the Cashew Corporation of India are in the course of import and, therefore immune from liability to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Since there is a direct and inseverable link between the transaction of sale and the import of goods on account of the nature of the understanding between the parties as also by reason of the canalising scheme pertaining to the import of cashewnuts, the sales in question cannot be taxed under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, as the case may be.
-
1997 (3) TMI 505
Liability to pay sales tax of agent - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The West Bengal Act is on similar lines as the Kerala Act. An agent as a dealer has been made directly liable to pay sales tax for good reasons. The Act has not provided for splitting of the sales made by the dealer for and on behalf of different principals and make separate assessment on the dealer. It is the total turnover of the dealer which has been brought to tax under the Act. In making the assessment of the dealer, the Commercial Tax Officer does not have to find out what was the exact quantum of sales effected on behalf of each principal and what was the liability, if any, of that principal. The liability to pay tax imposed by section 6B is on the dealer himself and not on the principal through the dealer. For computing his liability, the taxable turnover of the dealer has to be found out. The agent may sell goods on account of others. But that will not absolve the agent from the liability to pay tax on such sales. Otherwise, the imposition of tax by section 6B on an agent who is a dealer will become meaningless.
Thus Taxation Tribunal clearly fell into error in holding that the aggregate of the turnover of the principals cannot be computed for assessing the agent for turnover tax under section 6B. The judgment and order dated September 20, 1989 of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
1997 (3) TMI 497
Whether the appellant who carries on business of buying paddy and after getting it husked sell the rice becomes liable to pay tax under section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Taxes Act, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Even though rice is produce out of paddy, paddy does not continue to be paddy even after dehusking. Rice and paddy are tow different things in ordinary parlance. Therefore, when paddy is dehusked and rice is produced there has been a change in the identity of the goods. this court, therefore, took the view that the assessee is liable to pay tax on the goods purchased from the market. As that rice and paddy are two distinct assessee on the purchase of paddy becomes liable to pay purchase tax.
-
1997 (3) TMI 494
Whether the appellant who purchases dry bones and converts them into bone- meal for sale as such in the market can be said to be liable to pay purchase tax under section 5A(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. This question is resolved in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Subbaraj and Co. [1980 (9) TMI 253 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]. The appeal lodged against this decision of the Madras High Court was dismissed in limine by this Court. Therefore, this decision of the Madras High Court is holding the field since it came to be decided on September 23, 1980. Having regard to the fact that this Court rejected the special leave petitions filed questioning the correctness of the view taken in this case, we also do not see any reason why we should take a different view.
-
1997 (3) TMI 484
Whether the deposits were liable to be treated as part of the assessee's sales turnover for the purpose of levy of sales tax?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The consumers will be liable to pay sales tax when they return the bottles by taking back the deposits. This proposition was countered by arguing that there was a single point tax on sale of bottles. If that be so, then the charge of tax, if any, would fall on the first sale by the principal, i.e., United Brewery Company Limited. The assessee was a middle-man and could not be made liable to pay sales tax on account of "sale" of the bottles to the retailers or the consumers in any event.
-
1997 (3) TMI 476
Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... herein the petitioner in the main petition be directed to file a civil suit in a civil court to establish the claim within a time period that may be prescribed by this court. For the above reasons, I pass the order as under The company petition is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Consequently, C.A. Nos. 103 of 1997 and C.A. No. 221 of 1997 are dismissed. The respondent-company is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 (rupees three lakhs) within a period of two weeks from today to the credit of the company petition. In the event of the petitioner, initiating any legal proceedings against the respondent-company within a period of two months from today the said amount shall be deposited in a scheduled bank, awaiting the final result of such proceedings and in case such proceedings are not initiated with due registered notice to the respondent-company, within a period of two months from today, the respondent-company would be entitled to withdraw the same.
-
1997 (3) TMI 474
Winding up – Overriding preferential payments, Avoidance of certain attachments, executions, etc.
-
1997 (3) TMI 473
Deficiency in service ... ... ... ... ..... December, 1991. It is, therefore, unnecessary to determine whether the draft along with the application was lost by the agent or by the branch office of the UTI or the office issuing the units. We are inclined to mould the relief granted by the District Forum as here- under 6. The Complainant shall deposit with the UTI the duplicate draft No. 888952 for Rs. 9,975 drawn on the State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch favouring the UTI after its revalidation together with a duplicate copy of the application within one month from the date of the receipt of this Order. The UTI shall issue the units of MIUS-90(II) (Cumulative) within a period of one month thereafter, but under the original scheme back dated. The effect of the issue of the units would be that the Complainant could get interest cumulative as per the scheme. The relief granted by the District Forum is set aside and substituted as specified above. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. SCL q JUNE 5, 1998
-
1997 (3) TMI 471
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... eliminary expenses. That order has not been set aside by the Supreme Court. This court can certainly pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice including giving directions to the secured creditors to pay amounts to the official liquidator to proceed with the winding up proceedings. Therefore, the order dated July 20, 1992, in Report No. 2 in C.P. No. 17 of 1990 shall be complied with by the I.C.I.C.I. It is submitted that the State Bank of Travancore had taken that order in appeal as M.F.A. No. 664 of 1992. The official liquidator shall take steps to get the interim order of stay modified. That stay is only confined to the State Bank of Travancore. So, payment by the I.C.I.C.I. is not affected by that order. Over and above that, the I.D.B.I., another secured creditor, shall also pay Rs. 25,000 to the official liquidator to defend the suit filed by them and also to meet the expenses towards the winding up. Payment shall be made at any rate within one month from today.
-
1997 (3) TMI 458
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... s shares are floated in the share market. There is no effective reply with regard to the same from the side of the petitioner. The jurisdiction of this court under section 433 of the Act is not that of a court which is essentially meant for settling money disputes between the parties but is to subserve the object of winding up of companies which have not paid their debts or which are unable to pay their debts. As already noticed above, the present is not a case where it can be said that the company is unable to pay its debt. They have already paid the admitted amount. The rest of the amount is being bona fide disputed by them and with regard to the same a civil suit is already pending. In view of the aforesaid and further in view of the fact that the respondent company have already paid the amount which they were admitting as due, this winding up petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
........
|
