|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 432 Records
-
1999 (10) TMI 704 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. These conclusions do not justify classification of brake shoe as spare part . Brake shoes in question manufactured by the petitioner neither require replacement in ordinary course on account of wear and tear, nor they are kept in reserve for use in emergency, nor are available in shops, as the case of the petitioner is that they are supplied only to Telco and the same cannot be used in other vehicles. 21.. In these facts and circumstances, brake shoe manufactured by the petitioner cannot be classified as spare part within the meaning of entry 1 of the Twelfth Schedule to the said Act and would fall under residuary entry under section 7(1)(xxviii) of the said Act and as taxable thereunder. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed, in terms of prayer clause (B). Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). In the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 703 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not an independent witness inasmuch as he had obliged the police in other cases also. We are not inclined to say that if a person happened to witness other instances that would denude him of his independent character. 4. The last attempt made by the learned Counsel was based on a truncated sentence found in the cross-examination of P.W. 1. The analyst who tested the contraband in the laboratory, to a question in cross-examination has said that he could not answer whether the contraband contained cowdung also. In the certificate which he issued after analysis, as well as in the examination-in-chief, the witness has stated in definite terms that the contraband was charas . Hence, the aforesaid isolated answer is hardly sufficient to destroy the probative value of the evidence of that witness. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant based on the concurrent findings of the two Courts. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 702 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... order setting aside the dismissal order or the ex parte proceedings and restoring the appeal to its original number. rdquo The proviso to rule 11 makes it clear that the said provision is applicable only when the appeal has been dismissed for default or proceeded with ex parte and not when the appeal is dismissed on merits. The Tribunal did not dismiss the appeal for default and did not set the appellant ex parte. It was at the request of counsel to consider the appeal on merits, based on the grounds of appeal, that the Tribunal decided the appeal on the merits. Counsel was competent either to submit his arguments in person or request the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal after considering the grounds of appeal as his arguments. We are, therefore, of the view that rule 11 is not applicable and the order being an order on the merits, cannot be set aside. For all the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed that consequently M. P. A. No. 102/MDS of 1999 also stands rejected.
-
1999 (10) TMI 701 - SC ORDER
The period of limitation that applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon - Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 699 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e of Rule 57A has come up for interpretation in a number of earlier decisions of the Tribunal and it has been held that not only an input or raw material which directly is involved in the manufacture of final product, would be covered by the said provisions, but any material which is used in relation to the manufacture of a final product would also be covered, though it may not find its place in the final product. It is also seen that the said ldquo Thrm Spl. rdquo is also not excluded from the list of inputs specified in the Notification issued under Rule 57A being classified under sub-heading 2710.90. The same is also not hit by the Exclusion Clause of Rule 57A. As such, I hold that the said ldquo Thrm Spl. rdquo is an eligible input in terms of Rule 57A. The Modvat credit is available in respect of the same under the said Rule and not under Rule 57Q. 8. emsp As a result, the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants and the impugned Order is set aside.
-
1999 (10) TMI 698 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Service Tax – Penalty for delay in filing of return and the reason of delay was imposition of a new tax – Penalty reduced
-
1999 (10) TMI 697 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... stinction exists between Modvat credit and duty payable on manufactured goods. The legislature itself has recognised a distinction between the two by providing separate sets of rules for them. Recovery of Modvat wrongly taken also separately dealt with under Rule 57-I, and not under Section 11A of the Act, as would be the case of both Modvat credit and duty are the same. The provisions for refund of these two duties also differ significantly. If the two are the same, it would in effect attribute redundancy to Rule 57-I. 7. emsp We must therefore hold that the Board rsquo s circular applies only to demands of duty under Section 11A and not Modvat credit. It would then follow that the Collector (Appeals) rsquo s order is not maintainable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) would now have to decide upon the merits of the case. 8. emsp Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Commissioner (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeal before him according to law.
-
1999 (10) TMI 696 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Misdeclaration of weight - Confiscation - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... t prices at Bombay has been referred to in the order-in-original, specific reliance has not been made on any particular import. Therefore, the finding in the order-in-original regarding contemporaneous imports at higher value remains general and vague. In order to base the assessment on contemporaneous imports, it is necessary that the Revenue authorities establish with the help of specific imports that goods comparable in physical characteristics, quality, reputation, country of origin and timing of import are being imported at higher value. Since this requirement has not been met in the instant case, the Commissioner was correct in holding that rejection of the transaction value was not justified in the instant case. Therefore, this finding also cannot be found fault with. Contentions in the appeal are too general and vague and are against the correct legal position with regard to valuation of imported goods. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeals. They are dismissed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 695 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Insecticides - Fipronil ... ... ... ... ..... Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand. Before the Commissioner (Appeals) the judgment of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 5693/97, dated 30-11-1998 2000 (115) E.L.T. 324 (Del.) was cited. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that this would apply to authorities working under the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court but would not cover the Customs officials in Mumbai. On this observation, he upheld the lower order. We have seen the cited judgment of the High Court. The High Court had struck down the circular dated 28-10-1997 issued by the Board. It is futile for the ld. Commissioner to hold that the circular continued to bind the Customs authorities not under the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The ratio of the cited judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in a number of judgments including that reproduced in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 95. In view of this very clear law laid down, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief, if any, as per law.
-
1999 (10) TMI 694 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hase of khair wood from two brothers have not been further investigated into. The onus in the case of non-notified goods lies heavily upon the Department and is required to be discharged by production of positive, affirmative and tangible evidence. Mere some missing link in the statement of the various persons cannot be a pointer towards the fact that the wood was of Nepalese origin and was smuggled therefrom. The circumstantial evidences, as rightly contended by the learned Consultant should be of such type which inspire confidence in the prosecution case and not of the type which only raises doubts towards the appellant. Inasmuch as the foreign origin of the khair wood has not been established conclusively, I set aside the impugned order confiscating khair wood and imposing penalty upon the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant. The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1999 (10) TMI 693 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Show cause notice - Natural justice - Dummy units ... ... ... ... ..... was issued to these dummy units. Thus there has been complete failure of natural justice and prays that on this count alone, the appeal may be allowed. 2. emsp Shri K. Srivastava, ld. SDR submits that the SCN was issued to the appellants and since the appellants rsquo company had created other units only for availing the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and, therefore there was no necessity of issuing notice to the other firms. He submits that since all the facts were stated in the memo of SCN and since remaining 3 companies were being controlled by the appellants rsquo company, therefore there was no failure of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. 3. emsp Heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions, we find that there are four units. We note that SCN has been issued to only one unit. No SCN was issued to other units. Thus, there was violation of principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (10) TMI 692 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... wires and cables and oil tanks used as material handling eauipment were not capital goods covered by the explanation under Rule 57Q during the relevant period and therefore they denied them modvat credit. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the denial of Modvat credit was wrong. By following the decisions of the Tribunal in the earlier cases, the Tribunal had taken a consistent view on the admissibility of Modvat credit on wires and cables and material handling equipment. This consistent view culminated in the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jawahar Mills reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 1999 (32) RLT 379. This issue is not clear inasmuch as the Government of India issued Notifications subsequently first on 14-6-95 and second notification on 26-3-96 specifically mentioning some of these items in these notifications. Therefore the Hon rsquo ble MP High Court is requested to provide its considered view on the subject.
-
1999 (10) TMI 690 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... the same has not been done. The reason pointed out is that some old letter-heads have been taken to be utilised for that purpose. Once the road work had not been assigned, the bills are not forthcoming and even in the statement of account of the petitioner they have simply been added as 8-A and 9-A. It is obvious that the defence cannot be described as mala fide. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy, it would be appro-priate, if so advised, the petitioner may seek adjudication by filing a civil suit. Taking stock of totality of the facts, it cannot be held that the amount is due or that, prima facie, proof of fact is established. The defence can well be taken to be in good faith. 7. For these reasons, the petition being without merit must fail and is consequently dismissed. 8. However, by way of abundant caution, it is added that nothing said herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter if the petitioner chooses to file a civil suit.
-
1999 (10) TMI 689 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... his group. The remuneration of the special officer shall be the usual charges for such services and the same shall be paid by the respondents (MPJ group) upon representation of their bill. The special officer shall submit their valuation report within three months from date of communication of a copy of the order. Their reports of valuation shall be communicated within one week thereafter to the learned advocates on record for the petitioners and the respondents. 41. Accordingly, the application is disposed of in terms as above. S.B. Sinha, Actg. CJ. - I agree. The Court. mdash Prayer for stay of operation of the order is considered and refused. 42. Mr. Banerjee makes an oral prayer for leave to grant of certificate of fitness to file appeal before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India in terms of article 134A of the Constitution of India. Keeping in view the fact that similar such matters are pending before the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court of India, such leave is granted.
-
1999 (10) TMI 682 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the end-user to which it was put. Since the entire quantity of LPG in the instant case was removed for domestic consumption, duty liability will depend on the price of LPG fixed by Oil Co-ordination Committee (for short, OCC) for domestic consumption. In this view, the authorities below were not justified in imposing additional duty liability as could be seen in the orders under challenge. In the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the appeals mentioned above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
1999 (10) TMI 681 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal - Recalling of order ... ... ... ... ..... 35B(4) of the Act, the cross-objection should be treated as an appeal and should be disposed of in the same manner as an appeal. After passing of the order in the said appeals, when the matters relating to ship breaking were taken up by us, Shri S.K. Kohli, one of the Counsel appearing for some of the assessees informed the Bench that since we had already heard the matter and taken a decision, no useful purpose will be served in arguing the matter before us i.e. consisting of myself and Shri K.S. Venkataramani. Immediately, Shri Venkataramani and I withdrew ourselves from hearing the matter. Shri Chandrasekharan, Sr. Counsel has informed us that the memorandum of cross objection has to be considered again as independent appellants by filing the Misc. application in both the appeals. I therefore, refrain myself from hearing the matter as I had withdrawn in this matter. The registry is directed to place the Misc. applications before some other Bench in which I am not a Member.
-
1999 (10) TMI 680 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand, raised under wrong Rule ... ... ... ... ..... nvoked as there was no failure to account for the goods brought under Chapter X in terms of Notification No. 181/88. We also note that though the provisions of Notification 181/88 were not applicable to the goods of the appellant, however, the demand, if any, could be raised elsewhere and not under Rule 196 as 196 speaks only of complete accounting of the goods. In the instant case there was complete account of the goods. The goods were used or intended for use for packing the product which the applicant cleared on payment of duty. Having regard to these facts we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law. EDITOR rsquo S COMMENTS It is settled position in law that a demand is not vitiated simply because it has been raised under a wrong Rule. It is submitted respectfully that if this settled position were to be followed, another round of litigation would perhaps have been saved.
-
1999 (10) TMI 679 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Power, use of power - Exemption - Benefit of Notification No. 18/74-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... pipes - both agricultural and non-agricultural manufactured by the appellants herein fall for classification under TI 19.1(b). 6. emsp The next issue to be decided is the eligibility of the product to exemption in terms of Notification No. 18/74, dated 23-2-1974. This notification extends benefit to goods manufactured without the aid of power. The evidence on record consisting of statements of the Rubber Technologist of the Company, Shri N.K. Patel, Partner and Shri Kulkarni, Manager of A.P. Patel and Co. clearly shows that the power was used during the period in dispute for steering/mixing the rubber compound used for lining the cotton hose pipe jackets. Therefore, use of power in manufacture of the product is established. Hence the benefit of Notification 18/74 is clearly not available to the product and we hold that the demand has been rightly confirmed. Penalty imposed on the appellant is also sustainable. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1999 (10) TMI 678 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Excisability - Marketability - Demand - Limitation - Modvat/Cenvat - Exemption - Chapter X Procedure
-
1999 (10) TMI 661 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Further issue of capital, Directors - Number of ... ... ... ... ..... g management of the company. 32. For the aforesaid reasons, to our mind, clause 8 of the MOU, to the extent it provides that the number of Directors shall not exceed three till Rolta India Ltd., holds share capital in the company of the face value of Rs. 10 lacs, cannot be specifically enforced and, in this view, the question of restraining Defendant No. 1 and 2 by issue of interim injunction does not arise. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to the second relief as well. The observations made in this judgment are prima facie for the purpose of decision of the Appeal and Notice of Motion and will not affect the rights and contentions of the parties on merits which are subject-matter of the suit. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal and Notice of Motion. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. 34. Status Quo regarding the appointment of the Additional Director will continue for a period of six weeks from today.
........
|
