|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Import manifest ... ... ... ... ..... lvage operation nor in that event can the writ petitioners get any relief here. 9.Because of the complete inaction of the respondent No. 8 in regard to the salvage of the 9 containers or any of them, it becomes a matter of serious dispute before a court as to whether those 9 containers had actually fallen over-board or not. 10.All public respondents are put hereby at liberty to take all proceedings in regard to enquiry as to what actually had happened to the 9 containers and they will be free to initiate departmental, civil or criminal proceedings in regard thereto against all the parties concerned here, and that notwithstanding the pendency of this writ. 11.This writ application shall stand adjourned sine die until satisfactory completion of the writ application filed by the respondent No. 8 and all applications made therein or to be made therein hereafter. 12.All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (3) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Criteria ... ... ... ... ..... g the stay application were duly considered and there was no failure of justice. The balance has to be drawn between the assessee and the revenue. Prima facie, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest are the factors which have been held worth consideration. Balance sheet of the company has not been submitted along with the petition nor the appellate authority has dealt with this aspect except the aspect of financial stringency raised was considered. The appellate authority found that 50 of the payment has to be deposited within 90 days. The Order passed in regard to waiver of pre-deposit and stay is no doubt a discretionary order but the discretion has to be taken judicially. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the petitioner may deposit 40 of the demand, i.e., Rs. 3,60,00,000/- within the period ordered by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals). Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation.
-
1999 (3) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution (Customs) - Acquittal - Appeal against ... ... ... ... ..... ance certificate from the customs official after observing the formalities required to be done. Thus, it is clear that the respondents are liable to be convicted and accordingly, they are convicted for the charge under Section 135(1)(a) read with 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act. 17.The learned Counsel for the respondents was questioned with reference to sentence. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that they are still in financial difficulties and that is the reason why they are not able to pay the penalty yet imposed by the adjudicating authority. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the long lapse of years in between, I impose fine of Rs. 10,000/- on A1 and Rs. 5,000/- each on A2 and A3. 18.Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. A1 to A3 are convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to pay the fine referred to above, in default to undergo R.I. for one year. The time for payment of fine is one month from today.
-
1999 (3) TMI 82 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... the company. 2. In view of the above, although it is admitted to the applicant that notice was issued to the respondent-Company, it was, it is contended, served upon a casual labour working in their Company. Whether it was served on the casual labour or the Company itself cannot be verified from the original record as most of the papers relating to the service of notice have been weeded out. We, therefore, have to proceed on the basis that the respondent was served as it was on this basis that the Court had disposed of the appeal treating the respondent as served. The application is rejected. Application for condonation of delay is also rejected.
-
1999 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the notice issued by the respondent was beyond the period of six months hence barred by time ?
Whether the stock in question was pre-budget stock, the assessment on the same was illegal and not sustainable?
Held that:- In the present case a clear finding was recorded that the petitioner was aware and was obliged to file RG 1 Register, gate passes and also of clearances in the RT 12 returns by disclosing the particulars which was not done. The finding recorded especially in the background that this was a case of self removal procedure in which there is obligation cast on the assessee to make proper and correct declaration and entries in the production register RG 1. Further finding was that it was not by inadvertence. There could be no other inference if it was not by inadvertence, then deliberate, then it is not in the realm of inaction of the assessee but with the objective of a gain, which in other words would be conscious withholding of the information. Thus unhesitantly we conclude, on the facts of this case, proviso to Section 11 would be applicable, hence, show cause notice is held to be within time.
the Tribunal recorded the finding that once allegation was that stock was not pre-budget stock, the burden was on the assessee to prove this fact. This was not done. The Tribunal further recorded that the Assistant Collector personally examined the matter and after discussing with the company official and after the scrutiny of the record gave allowances for a quantity which he held to be from pre-budget stock and that quantity was excluded from excise duty. Assistant Collector gives details about this and Tribunal recorded these figures were not controverted by the assessee before the Tribunal. No evidence was led to prove this. We find even this submission of learned Counsel for the appellant has been concurrently found against him by all the courts below. Against assessee.
-
1999 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT
whether the entry 58 of the notification using word `Machine' in singular not plural viz. `Machines', could it include other machines referred in the same notification for granting exemption or it qualifies only one composite machine for resistor to give benefit under it?
Held that:- The Tribunal gave good reasons for rejecting the interpretation given by the department. Having considered the submissions for the parties we find in case interpretation given by the department is to be accepted, no assessee could get exemption unless all the machines are imported as one composite machine reference of each separate machines with (') would have no meaning. This will make this notification unworkable, hence Tribunal rightly rejected Revenue interpretation. The notification has to be interpreted to give true import and meaning, not to make it purposeless and nugatory. It is well settled which is also provided in Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 of the Central Acts that unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context the word singular shall include plural and vice versa. The Tribunal interpreted the word `machine' to be `machines' and, in our opinion, rightly so. It seems by this restrictive interpretation the very purpose of this notification since completely diluted which led into clarification/modification by the Government through the aforesaid letter. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... 1.Matter is made returnable 20 weeks hence. 12.In case the writ petitioner tenders to the respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 7,88,34,860/- within 30 days of 26-2-1999, then and in that event the respondent No. 1 shall accept the said sum and is directed to make the acceptance without demur or protest, notwithstanding the Designated Authority s order dated 26-2-1999 or any other order or provision of law. Such payment and acceptance shall also be without prejudice. In case of such tender by the writ petitioner within the time aforesaid there shall be interim orders in terms of prayers (e), (f) and (g) of the writ petition until further orders of Court. In case the payment is not tendered as aforesaid, the writ application shall stand rejected. 13.Affidavit-of-service be accepted. Rule may hereafter be served without copy petition as those have already been served. 14.All parties and all others concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (3) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... eared under a brand name or not is a question of fact. Therefore the department must adjudicate first. 5.It appears to me that whether the Tea Estate s name is a brand name within the meaning of Clause 5 of Chapter 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is primarily a question of law. 6.The writ application is therefore not an abuse of the process of law seeking to stifle the show cause unjustly. 7.Rule as prayed for. Returnable 16 weeks hence. There will be an interim order in terms of prayer (h) of the petition restricted however to the single tea garden in West Bengal related to the show cause notice dated 4th January, 1999. 8.In regard to the other tea gardens and the concerned show cause notice, the writ petitioner will be at liberty to move the appropriate High Court at Assam notwithstanding the pendency of this writ petition. 9.Order and observations are without prejudice. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (3) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the GAIC for the full amount. 6.In the circumstances of the case now it is clear that the appellant had made the payments and they had cleared the goods on producing appropriate challans against which payments had been made and certain third parties had derived benefits by utilising those challans. If that is so, the proper course for the respondents is to proceed against them and not against the appellants. 7.Therefore, we allow this appeal and direct the respondents not to take any action against the appellants pursuant to the show cause notices impugned herein. However, it is made clear that it is open to the respondents to proceed against the third parties in accordance with law who had derived benefits out of payments against the challans produced by the appellants. 8.Subject to what is stated above, the Civil Appeal is allowed. Security, if any, furnished to take back the amounts deposited in the High Court shall stand discharged. 9.There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 76 - SC ORDER
Waste and Scrap - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... er user, cannot be said to have been manufactured by the respondent and, therefore, no duty can be levied thereon. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, will apply?
Held that:- In the present case, it is not in dispute that both Indro and Santi inherited this property from their mother, hence inherited this property as a female from her mother. Thus on the facts of this case succession clearly falls under sub-section (2). Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that on the facts of this case, the property would devolve after the death of Santi not on the heirs of her pre-deceased husband but would devolve on Indro. This legal principle has wrongly been decided by all the courts below including the High Court. Appeal allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accrual Of Income, Interest On Sticky Advances, Business Expenditure, Perquisite To Employees, Mercantile System, Reference
-
1999 (3) TMI 73 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Reassessment, Valuation Report, Validity ... ... ... ... ..... s of the reassessment in the case in hand cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It follows from the above when the notices for reassessment cannot be said to be without jurisdiction the writ petitions challenging such notices are not maintainable. The petitioner has to participate in the departmental proceedings and raise all the objections there. The petitioner will be entitled to pursue remedies in case of any adverse orders in accordance with the statute. The statute in the present case permits appeals against the orders of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner is thus relegated to the assessment proceedings and remedies in accordance with the statute. These writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. We have refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy so that there is no prejudice to the case of the parties in the proceedings before the departmental authorities under the statute. The writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Manufacture, Rubber Stoppers, New Machinery, Industrially Backward Area
-
1999 (3) TMI 71 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Perquisite, Maintenance Of Houses, Advance Tax, Interest On Securities
-
1999 (3) TMI 70 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Exemption, Tendu Leaves ... ... ... ... ..... f law made by the competent court cannot have any binding effect on the judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. In view of such settled principle of law and in view of the admitted position this court does not find any problem to adjudicate the matter and answer the dispute by observing that the activities of the petitioner in dealing with kendu leaves after purchase in bundles and to make ready for marketable and saleable for bidi manufacturing are not processing. If it is not processing the petitioner is not entitled to obtain the certificate as envisaged under section 206C of the Income-tax Act. The circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, dated January 10, 1996 and January 17, 1996, as per annexure-5 series cannot have any overriding effect upon statutory law and in view of the interpretation of law made by the apex court and different High Courts. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the writ petition. There is no order as to costs. C. R. PAL J.---I agree.
-
1999 (3) TMI 69 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Co-operative Society, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... nment. The case of the Revenue is that there is no purchase of water by the assessee as there was no purchase consideration. The case of the assessee is that it is clear from the terms and conditions laid down by the Government that it is purchase of water on payment of water charges. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the terms of the arrangement between the assessee and the Government of Maharashtra for lifting the water from the rivers for supplying it to its members for agriculture, it is clear that the water charges paid by the assessee, in fact, represent the purchase price of water. That being so, the assessee is entitled to exemption in respect of income from the Lift Irrigation Scheme under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Act. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... he opinion of this court. So far as question No. (1) proposed by the assessee is concerned, none of the expenses covered by the said question fall within section 35B(1)(b) and, therefore, none of them can be said to be admissible for weighted deduction. The plain reading of the provision shows this. Moreover, there are decisions already referred to which have taken the same view. The other question, i.e., question No. (3) proposed by the assessee does not involve any question of law and, therefore, does not qualify for being referred for opinion of this court. So far as questions Nos. (2), (4) and (5) are concerned, we agree with the Tribunal that they do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The result is that this petition fails. We reject the prayer of the assessee for calling upon the Tribunal to frame a statement of the case and refer the questions of law suggested by the assessee for opinion of this court. This petition under section 256(2) of the Act is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... tion has no connection whatsoever with the transfer of property in question. The stipulation in the agreement merely requires the owner to clear all its liabilities on certain accounts and to keep the-transferee indemnified. This stipulation cannot change the character of the retrenchment compensation from a liability arising out of the closure of the business to expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset in question. In view of the above, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the retrenchment compensation paid by the assessee to its employees was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the sale of the property, i.e., the property of the business of the assessee consisting of land and building. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 66 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Writ, Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... that as there was search and seizure on February 22, 1989, it could not submit its return cannot be accepted because nothing prevented the petitioner to file return on July 31, 1988, long before the search and seizure. That apart, as already pointed out, nothing prevented the petitioner to seek for extension of time. Moreover, when the Department offered the petitioner to take copies by its communication dated August 23, 1990, the petitioner did not make use of it. On the other hand, the petitioner virtually in the last fortnight, that is only by the end of two years from April 1, 1989, approached the Department on March 19, 1991 and sought permission to take copies of the document. As the Department was very much busy in completing the various assessments the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. In these circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a case for this court to interfere with the impugned orders. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed.
....
|
