|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 630 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 976 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Powers of liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it proper to order payment of Rs. 30,000 to the applicant advocate minus Rs. 2,000 already paid to him, in full and final settlement for his claim of fee. 11. In view of the above, application A51 is decided in this way that the ex parte order dated 24-2-1999 is recalled to the extent it says lsquo no useful purpose will be served by paying any further amount to Shri Vijay Kumar Jain advocate rsquo . The remaining part of that order shall remain unaffected. A total amount of Rs. 30,000 is ordered to be paid by the Official Liquidator to the applicant Shri Vijay Kumar Jain, advocate, in full and final settlement of the claim for his fee. He has already received Rs. 2,000. The balance of Rs. 28,000 shall be paid to him by the Official Liquidator by means of account payee cheque within a week from this order. The amount shall be charged from the funds of the company in question in the hands of the Official Liquidator.
-
2000 (8) TMI 974 - SUPREME COURT
Transfer of pending cases - Held that:- Appeal allowed. The aforesaid section 31A is clearly applicable in the present case. The decree was passed by a Court before the commencement of the Amendment Act and the same has not yet been executed. At least after the amendment, it is only the Tribunal which would have the jurisdiction of entertaining the application for execution of the decree inasmuch as the amount due for which the decree was sought to be executed is over ₹ 10 lakhs. We are also unable to agree with the High Court that because the original decree which was passed was for a principal sum of ₹ 6,19,250 the Tribunal would get no jurisdiction. It is to be seen that the decree was for a sum of ₹ 6,19,250 plus interest at the rate of 16½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of money. As and when the amount due to the bank under the decree became more than ₹ 10 lakhs and an application for execution was filed, it could only be entertained by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court. It is clear that in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Act, the provisions of Order 21, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure would have no application.
-
2000 (8) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT
Whether sponsoring authority was right in placing the confessional statements of the said two co-accused, which were documents in their detention proceedings and, if placed, whether non placing of the retraction made by the said two accused which inherently co-relates the confessional statement, before the detaining authority, affects the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority?
Held that:- The impugned detention order dated 23-12-1999, suffers from patent illegality and, thus, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is quashed and petitioner is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in connection with some other case Coming back to the present case we find really it is a case of one composite ground. The different numbers of the ground of detention are only paragraphs narrating the facts with the details of the document which is being relied but factually, the detention order is based on one ground, which is revealed by ground 1(xvi) of the ground of detention which we have already quoted hereinbefore. Thus, on the facts of this case section 5A has no application in the present case.
-
2000 (8) TMI 950 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s of the earlier order passed by the Commissioner, the order impugned in this appeal has also been passed. 2. emsp Value of the tool kit supplied by the appellant along with the motor cycles manufactured by them was added to the value of the motor cycles and duty levied. For the earlier period, when such a course of action was resorted to by the department evidenced by Order-in-Original No. 6/2000, dated 13-3-2000, they came before this Tribunal in Appeal No. E/1483/2000-A. By Final Order No. 600/2000-A, dated 20-7-2000, this Tribunal set aside that order holding that value of the tool kit cannot form part of the assessable value of motor cycles. That decision tendered by the inter-parties binds the Revenue. So, for the subsequent period also value of the toot kits cannot be taken as part of the assessable value of the motor cycle. It, therefore, follows that the order impugned is unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside with consequential relief, if any. Appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 943 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EOU - Jurisdiction to raise demand - 100% export oriented unit - Demand - Shortage of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ion is - (i) That the jurisdiction for adjudication was vested in the officer of the Pune Excise Commissionerate. (ii) That the relevant issues as detailed in the order of the Member (Technical) and elaborated in my order are required to be considered by the jurisdictional Commissioner and for that reason the appeals be allowed and the matters be remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner at Pune for consideration de novo. 35. emsp The papers may now be placed before the original bench for appropriate orders. Sd/-J.H. Joglekar Member (T) FINAL ORDER 36. emsp In the light of the opinion of the third member, the Bench which heard the matter order as follows 37. emsp The appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall, after hearing the appellant and considering the submissions that have been raised in the appeal, pass orders in accordance with law. Sd/-(G.N. Srinivasan)(Member (J) Sd/-(Gowri Shankar)Member (T)
-
2000 (8) TMI 935 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
EXIM Policy - Quota Transfer System - High Court - Order, interlocutory order - Stay ... ... ... ... ..... ity, modernization and in the interest of nation as a whole. On consideration, this Court will go into this since the matter involved is a question of fact and it needs investigation. Nor the Court can put its own reasons or conclusion in a matter like this. Under the circumstances, on this count, this Court cannot stay the scheme. As stated, the scheme is going to end in September, 2000 and it will be appropriate for the Government to consider all the relevant materials while making a scheme for future, in the interest of all concerned, in accordance with law. Since the period is going to end in September, 2000, they are free for mutual transfer till the scheme is over without making a precedent. But this concession will not give any right for schemes to be made in future for which the Government is competent, as discussed above. 9. emsp With the above observation, all the writ appeals are disposed of. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 4407, 4749, 10984 and 10985 of 2000 are closed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 925 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ncluded that though new tariff contains the detailed classification of pipes and tubes, it contains no new definition relating to manufacture. As such the findings of the Apex Court would remain equally valid under the new tariff also. The change in the physical shape and size of the pipes, adopted and modified for the purpose of specific use will not make the same as a product different than the parent product. 4. emsp We do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal in the case of True Forge (P) Ltd. Accordingly, respectfully following the same, we hold that elbows, tees and reducers cannot be levied to duty again as manufactured items. 5. emsp As the first issue has been answered in favour of the appellants, the other two issues framed above do not survive for decision. 6. emsp In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2000 (8) TMI 917 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (APPEAL
Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t Commissioner but also allowed item i.e. Rebates. Further it covers additional period from September, 98 to March, 98 and thereby keeping all issues open for fresh adjudication. In the aforesaid view of the factual background of the case, the aforesaid Show Cause Notice issued under Section 11A, I find that demand and recovery by way of the impugned notice is not only premature but null and void. 13. emsp In the light of aforementioned discussion, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority with the direction to finalise the issues which are still provisional and to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order in terms of Section 11A after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and on following principles of natural justice and also to determine the quantum of consolidated duty liability, if any, arising out of finalisation of all the provisional issues. 14. emsp Appeal is allowed by way of remand and the impugned order dated 13-3-2000 is set aside.
-
2000 (8) TMI 915 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... ne. Therefore, I find that the order-in-appeal impugned also does not deal with the issue of whether the goods were parts as claimed originally by the appellants. Under these circumstances, I find that it will not serve any purpose to remand the matter as the goods are not available for ascertaining the facts disputed by the appellants. As the matter is quite old, I find that the interest of justice would be met, if the redemption fine against imports of all the three bills of entries are reduced from 50 to 35 of their value. The order-in-appeal is modified to this extent only. The appeal is, therefore, partially allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, as per law. rdquo 5. emsp In terms of the above order, the redemption fine is reduced to 35 of the value of the goods and therefore, the order impugned in both the cases are modified to that extent and the redemption fine shall be 35 of the value of the goods imported. The impugned orders are modified accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 914 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Shortages in modvatable inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ed in the present appeals are from 1991-92 to 1995-96. Accordingly, we find that by comparing the entries in the RG-23A Part-I with the quantum of inputs actually received in the RG-23A Part-I instead of the quantum of inputs initially entered by the appellants in the RG-23A Part-I, there would not be any shortage. Accordingly, we do not find any justification in confirmation of the demand of duties in respect of shortages of the inputs i.e. ldquo Alumina rdquo . At this stage, learned Advocate submits that a small amount of duty of Rs. 21,289.00 has been confirmed in respect of Petroleum Coke found short in the stock-taking for disallowing the Modvat Credit. As the amount is too small, the appeal against the same is not being pressed. Accordingly, we confirm the said amount. 7. emsp As regards the personal penalty, we find that as the appeals have been allowed, we set aside the quantum of penalty imposed on the appellants. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 912 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Production capacity based duty - Compounded levy ... ... ... ... ..... 474 has laid down as to how the word ldquo day rdquo has to be understood for the purposes of these rules. We find that this decision has been arrived at after looking into a Trade Notice issued by the concerned Collector. In the present case before us there is a Trade Notice issued by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III which specifies in Para 11 as follows - ldquo The trade is informed that they should plan the time of closure during the normal office hours. rdquo Therefore, the interpretation of the word ldquo day rdquo will have to be given the meaning as determined in this Bench decision mentioned supra and the Trade Notice No. 88/99, dated 6-12-1999 by Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad-III, the matters are therefore required to be remanded back to the lower authorities for de novo adjudication in view of our findings herein above. 3. emsp The appeal and stay application are disposed of accordingly in the above terms by remand for de novo adjudication.
-
2000 (8) TMI 911 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Petroleum jelly - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... well appropriate. As there is no evidence of the product being capable of being marketed, we do not find any merits in the Reveue rsquo s stand. 8. emsp We also note that the Tribunal in the case of Mehtachem Industries v. C.C.Ex., Rajkot reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 690 (T) 1999 (32) RLT-48 (CEGAT) has held that the intermediate product consisting of petroleum jelly, lanolin and paraffin coming into existence during the process of manufacture of Boroquien Antiseptic Cream is not excisable inasmuch as the Revenue has failed to adduce evidence as regards the marketability of the said product. The facts and the legal point involved in the present appeal are duly covered by the ratio of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mehtachem Industries. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view, in view of our foregoing discussions. As a result, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal on merits without going into the aspect of limitation.
-
2000 (8) TMI 910 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Compounded levy - Words and phrases ... ... ... ... ..... e factory manufactures both notified and non-notified goods. The Tribunal rsquo s decision in CCE v. Prem Cables case (supra) relied on by the ld. Counsel for the appellant which is said to have been confirmed by the Apex Court, in our view, supports the appellants rsquo contention that a distinction is required to be made between the part of the factory which manufactures the notified goods and the part which manufactures non-notified goods. In reply to a specific query from the Bench, ld. Counsel had shown records showing that while the stock position of the notified goods had not changed during the period for which abatement had been claimed, there was difference in the electric meter reading between the days of non-production of notified goods and resumption of production of notified goods. 9. emsp In the facts as emerging from the above discussion the appeal has merit and is allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants. Impugned order is, as a result, set aside.
-
2000 (8) TMI 909 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration - Words and phrases - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... nce in the learned Advocate rsquo s plea that if international price have gone up and are fluctuating no presumption of any nature can be drawn against the appellant on the basis of the same. (f) The learned Advocate has relied upon lot of case law. The decision in the case of 2000 (123) E.L.T. 715 (Tribunal) 1997 (21) RLT 156 Apurva Chemical which is on Wide Spec appeals to us, the most therein it has been held that in absence of reliable evidence, the invoice price could not be ignored. We agree with the same and find it to be applicable to cover the present case. (g) emsp When we find no misdeclaration of goods and or value and find that the enquiry started consequent to a unverified date called lsquo information rsquo and not any specific intelligence, which was not found to be true on facts, we can find no reason to uphold confiscation to goods, redemption fine and penalties imposed on this case. 6. emsp In view of our findings, the order is set aside and appeal allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 908 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Sale of factory - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... missioner (Appeals) order therefore is required to be set aside and matter remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner to readjudicate the case as per the provisions of Section 3, 11A(1) 11A(2) read with Rules 7, 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules and redetermine the liability on the person chargeable to duty as per law. (iv) emsp The trade practice of the thirteen pieces to be constituting a ldquo Bakers Dozen rdquo is well known and accepted. Therefore, the trade practice of what is the weight of the consignment under clause as per accepted Trade Norms, Government fixed tolerance limits will have to be considered and applied. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to ascertain the same and apply the trade and Government fixed norms and redetermine the less charge if any as the Commissioner (Appeals) findings are being set aside for de novo determination. 5. emsp In view of our findings the appeal is allowed on remand for de novo adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner.
-
2000 (8) TMI 905 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Shortages of exigible goods - Stock-taking - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ould be initiated to recover duty pertaining to 1986-87 and 1988-89. Therefore, the determination of demand as determined under Section 11A(2) is not complete in the present case and therefore, the order needs to be set aside. 6(iv) emsp The payment of duty on lsquo Phenol rsquo for the period 1983-84 to 1986-87 to reconcile the figure by payment cannot lead to justify the invoking of the longer period vide show cause notice dated 4-3-1992. Since that period is beyond the period of five years under Section 11A and dates of removals are known. 6(v) emsp Since shortages have been admittedly reported by the assessee, they require to be decided and determined as per Rule 223A and demands of duty thereafter determine as per Section 11A. 6(vi) emsp When the Rule 223A itself provides for a maxium penalty of Rs. 2,000/-, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q without referring to Rule 223A needs to be set aside. 7. emsp The order is set aside and Appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 874 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of - Import ... ... ... ... ..... for re-export of the goods. The agreement and the negotiation with the foreign supplier took place with the knowledge and consent of the Customs Authorities. Accordingly, we feel that though the non-production of the licence makes the goods liable to confiscation, redemption fine of Rs. 15.00 lakhs imposed upon the appellants is definitely on the higher side. Similarly, imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs upon the appellants who were not the original importers, is not justified inasmuch as there was no contravention of the provisions of law with a mala fide intention on the part of the appellants. Accordingly, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 15.00 lakhs (Rupees fifteen lakhs) to a sum of Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) only and penalty from Rs. 5.00 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs) to a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) only. But for the above modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
2000 (8) TMI 873 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... mmissioner, Calcutta, which are to the effect that as the invoices do not mention the assessee rsquo s name as the consignee and the consignee indicated therein, is not the end-user, instructions issued by the Board will not apply. The above observation is factually an incorrect observation and is against the evidence on record placed by the appellants in the shape of invoices which have perused by us. As the appellants have been shown the consignees and having been received the goods directly from the premises of S.A.I.L., as is evident from the RRs. and GRs. issued by the transport authorities and there is no dispute that the appellants have themselves utilised the said inputs in the manufacture of the final product. M/s. Indian Foundry Association has only been shown as a party through whom dealing has been negotiated. In the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reasons to deny the benefit of the Modvat credit. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2000 (8) TMI 871 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... manufacturers under the provisions of Rule 52A and under the direction of the Railways, no endorsement as such was required to be made by the Railways on the said invoices. 7. emsp As such, we feel that in view of the peculiar facts of the instant case, the Larger Bench decision in the case of Balmer and Lawrie reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 (Tribunal) 2000 (36) RLT 666, would not be applicable. 8. emsp As regards the denial of credit of Rs. 37,720.00 availed by the appellants in respect of the cement, it is seen that invoices issued under Rule 52A by M/s. L. and T., were endorsed by M/s. L. and T. rsquo s own office at Calcutta in favour of the appellants along with their own invoices. As such, it is not a case of endorsement of invoices by the in-between receiver of the raw materials. As such, we feel that the denial was not justified. In view of our foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2000 (8) TMI 868 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... filing the application or appeal and the order passed by learned Asstt. Commissioner, can neither be said illegal nor improper. rdquo 4. emsp The ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) did not record any findings with regard to the submissions made by them before him. I have carefully considered these submissions. It indeed appears that the ld. lower Appellate Authority has recorded the findings in his order only on the submissions made before him by the department as appellants. He does not appear to have paid any attention to the case of the party. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore, suffers from the malady of non-application of mind. The same is accordingly set aside and the matter remanded to him for passing a detailed speaking order on taking into consideration the submissions made by both the sides. The party shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of stating their case before him before taking a final view in the matter.
............
|
