|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 456 Records
-
2001 (5) TMI 926 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the meaning of sale price , as defined under sub-section (34)(d) of section 2 read with Explanation 1 of the Act. Lastly, it is contended by Dr. Saraf that unless the tax paid in the first sale is adjusted in the second sale, it would amount to double taxation, which is not permissible under the Act. In our opinion, this submission has also no substance. First of all, this point has been dealt with by the learned single Judge in paragraph 9 of the Here italicised. judgment Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Assam 1999 112 STC 389 (Gauhati) and the learned single Judge held that value added taxation cannot be considered as double taxation. 14.. Apart from that, the tax levied on surcharge is collected from the actual consumers, and not paid by the dealer, and there is no question of double taxation. 15.. In view of what has been stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 925 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he dates of decision of the HLSC and filing of the writ petition. 6.. We have given serious thought to the argument of the learned Deputy Advocate-General, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him that relief should be declined to the petitioner only on the ground that it has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court after a lapse of one year and six months. In our opinion, this much of delay cannot be treated as fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition because on that account, no prejudice has been caused to the respondents. 7.. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the HLSC is declared illegal and quashed with the direction to it to pass fresh order in accordance with law and the decision of this Court Nice Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 9005 of 2000 decided on August 21, 2000), reported in 2001 121 STC 456. The petitioner is also given liberty to raise all legal permissible objections before the HLSC. Petition allowed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 924 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hameja Home Industries 1983 54 STC 217. In the said case arising under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, a similar contention was raised. Garam masala was being made by the trader therein by mixing different condiments in certain proportion and the mixing may take place either before or after grinding of the condiments, which go to make the product garam masala . Assessee s contention that there was a mere mixture of condiments in grinding and that there was no manufacturing process was repelled by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was held that for preparation of garam masala, something more than grinding is necessary and that process of obtaining the product garam masala comes within the ambit of definition of manufacture and is exigible to sales tax. In view of what is stated supra, we affirm the assessments made by the respondents. The T.R.Cs. are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition also stands dismissed. No costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 923 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve, the 1986 Act has been substituted by another Act of 1987. The Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986 on the basis of which the appellant industry claim exemption was repealed by another Act of 1987. Therefore, this decision is of no help to the appellant. 14.. Mr. Sahewalla has also brought to our notice the judgment and order dated March 27, 2001 passed by honourable Chief Justice Mr. N.C. Jain (as His Lordship then was) in batches of writ appeals, viz., W.A. No. 139 of 1998 and others as third Judge. On a bare perusal of the order it is noticed the judgment relates to 1991 policy and has no bearing in the facts of the case at hand. 15.. In the result, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge which warrants our interference. This writ appeal is accordingly dismissed as meritless. Parties are to bear their own costs. Writ appeal dismissed. Since reported as Manjushree Extrusions Limited v. Sate of Assam 2001 123 STC 366 (Gauhati).
-
2001 (5) TMI 922 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... med by the petitioner, then the assessing authority will issue a rectification order under section 55 of the TNGST Act, 1959, in regard to the correct tax paid. If there is no change in the tax paid and there is no error in the assessment order, a reply to that effect may be given to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 12.. Thus there is no case to interfere, apart from the above directions. It is seen that still the petitioner has got time to file appeal before the first appellate authority against the assessment order and hence it is ordered that the time spent on this proceedings before this Tribunal shall be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The O.P. is disposed of in the above manner. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 8th day of May, 2001. Petition disposed of.
-
2001 (5) TMI 921 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... That applies to the High Court also. The impugned order reads thus We have heard the learned counsel on merits. We find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. It is not a reasoned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh in accordance with law. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 920 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Settlement of case - Disclosure of additional liability ... ... ... ... ..... ceding to the request of the Applicant will only add on to the liability of the Applicant as he is to pay interest and will prevent the jurisdiction of the concerned Revenue Department who has stated before the Commission that at least Rs. Five Crore could be realised from the applicant. It is emphasized that Settlement Commission is not a forum for delaying the revenue collection and denying the Department the action the latter is expected to take to secure the Government revenue. Government cannot run on empty promises. The applicant is adopting dilatory tactics. 15. emsp Settlement Commission is of the opinion that the Applicant is not co-operating with the Settlement Commission in the proceedings before it. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 1271(1) of Customs Act, 1962 the Commission sends back the case to the proper officer who shall thereupon dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if no application under Section 127B had been made.
-
2001 (5) TMI 919 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
Cenvat/Modvat - EPCG benefit taken on imports - Demand - Interest ... ... ... ... ..... aives the payment of interest. 3. The applicant is granted immunity from payment of any fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, in relation to the bill of entry for which the application for settlement has been allowed. 4. The applicant is granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, the Indian Penal Code and Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 in relation to the bill of entry for which the application for settlement has been allowed. 5. It is reiterated that this order of settlement is limited to the case under settlement relating to capital goods imported and cleared by the applicant vide Bill of Entry No. 125, dt. 15-9-94 and in relation to which the Show Cause Notice No. S/99-144/94 AP, dt. 15-7-99 has been issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa. 6. This Order of Settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts.
-
2001 (5) TMI 918 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Plants not Goods - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... fixed therein cannot be separately taken as refrigeration plant. This aspect is to be appreciated in view of the fact that those machinery and parts have already suffered duty under the Central Excise Act. So, the approach made by the Commissioner cannot be taken as one appealing to common sense. The refrigeration plant is not movable goods. 9.Various bought out items which went into the construction of the refrigeration plant had already suffered excise duty when they were cleared from the factory where they were manufactured. Construction of refrigeration plant utilising those bought out items is not a manufacturing process wherein any marketable commodity as contemplated by the Act comes into existence. 10.In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the Commissioner has misguided himself in passing the impugned order of adjudication. The entire order is devoid of any substance. It is quashed in its entirety. Appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2001 (5) TMI 917 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake - Mistake of fact ... ... ... ... ..... This petition is filed invoking the provisions contained in Section 35C of the Act. Mistakes that can be rectified in terms of that Section are only clerical mistake or mistake apparent on the face of the record. We find no mistake apparent on the face of the record. The attempt of the learned D.R. is to bring out mistake of fact, on the basis of a long drawn argument. Such mistake even if there is, which we are not conceding in this case, will not come within the purview of mistake contemplated by Section 35C of the Act. On this ground the petition is only to be dismissed and we do so. 2. emsp Department has also asked for stay of return of the money deposited as directed by this Tribunal in its order dated 16-11-2000 as condition precedent for entertaining the appeal. We do not find any justification on the part of the Department to retain the money so deposited when the appeal itself was disposed of. The application filed by the Department is misconceived and is dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 916 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Rectification of mistakes - Typographical errors ... ... ... ... ..... hould be read as Chapter 35. 2. emsp After hearing Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR and going through the Ministry rsquo s Circular referred therein, we order that the expression lsquo Chapter 39 rsquo appearing in the said line at page 2 of the said order should be read as lsquo Chapter 35 rsquo . Similarly, we order that the second line at page 4 of the order would read as ldquo are meant for retail sale not in more than 1 kg. Packet rdquo . Miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 915 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Liability of Directors ... ... ... ... ..... . 1,96,675.76 p. only is due and decree for this amount is prayed for. 5. The defendants 4 to 6 are also impleaded on the ground that they were Directors of the defendant No. 1. However, these defendants did not give any personal guarantee for due payment of loan and simply because they were Directors of the defendant No. 1, they could not be fastened with the liability as the defendant No. 1 which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act is separate legal entity. The defendants 2 and 3 would be liable as Guarantors. Since the defendant No. 3 has also been absolved from the liabilities no decree need to be passed against the defendant No. 3 as well. 6. Decree in the sum of Rs. 1,96,675.76 p. is accordingly passed against the defendants 1 and 2 along with interest on this amount at the rate of 16.5 per cent per annum from the date of institution of suit till recovery thereof. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. Order accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 914 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
Refund - Limitation - Payment of duty under protest ... ... ... ... ..... to the above documents the appellant filed an affidavit duly notarised to the effect that no duty has been collected from the customers. This has been further supported with a Chartered Accountant rsquo s certificate and copy of the certified balance sheet. The learned advocate has drawn my attention in support of his arguments to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 1997 (90) E.L.T. 260 (S.C.) . On perusal of the same I observe that besides the above proof if sworn affidavit is filed to state that the duty burden has not been passed on to the purchaser, then the concept of unjust enrichment does not get attracted. Respectfully relying on the above decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court I hold that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the concept of unjust enrichment is not applicable. 9. emsp In the light of the above discussions the impugned order is set aside. 10. emsp The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (5) TMI 913 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Classifiaction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... er No. A-629/Cal/2000, dated 19-5-2000 2001 (133) E.L.T. 723 (T) holding lsquo Himtaj Oil is Classifiable under heading 3003.30. As such submits the learned Advocate that the demand of duty against the appellants is not sustainable in view of the fact that the classification dispute has been settled. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue admits the above factual position. Inasmuch as the Tribunal in appellants rsquo own case has held that lsquo Himtaj Oil rsquo , is classifiable under heading 3003.30 as lsquo Ayurvedic Medicament rsquo , the differential amount of duty confirmed by the authorities below by holding the same as classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 is not sustainable. Accordingly, following the ratio of the earlier Tribunal rsquo s Order as referred supra, we, after dispensing with the condition of predeposit of duty, take up the appeal itself and set aside the impugned order. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (5) TMI 912 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Documents, enumeration of ... ... ... ... ..... res one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case for rectification could be made out. 13. emsp On careful consideration of the matter, we hold that a decision which has been validly made by a duly constituted Bench is not open for review on the alleged ground that according to the applicants the decision was erroneous on fact or law. In any case, the Tribunal has no power to review its order. 14. emsp This Tribunal is a creation of the statute. Only the powers conferred under the statute, which created it can be exercised. It has no inherent powers as are available with courts established under the Constitution or Codes of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure. This Tribunal cannot recall an order passed or issued. Under the cover of ldquo rectification of mistake rdquo this Tribunal cannot exercise any power to recall an order validly passed. 15. emsp In view of the above, the application for rectification of mistake is rejected.
-
2001 (5) TMI 908 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... also, the order of detention cannot be maintained. We find that there is no challenge whatsoever in the petition to the logic or otherwise of fixing the cut off date is a question which cannot be adjudicated in the present petition. 9. So far the material relating to smuggling of goods, surrender of licence and/or payment of duty as claimed are concerned, it has to be noted that the grounds of detention are yet to be served. It is not known what are the grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that we may call for the records and pursue them. We do not think, same is a permissible cause. 10. In view of the legal and factual positions highlighted above, this is not a fit case where any interference is called for, before execution of the order of detention. The petitioner, if so advised, may first surrender pursuant to the order of detention, and thereafter have his grievances examined on merits. The present petition is thoroughly misconceived and is dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 907 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Insolvency petition ... ... ... ... ..... Government of India and the banking companies became the body corporate under section 2(d) of Act No. 5 of 1970. Clause (d) defines lsquo corresponding new bank in relation to existing bank rsquo to mean a body corporate specified against such bank in column 2 of Schedule 1. In the First Schedule lsquo Punjab National Bank Ltd. rsquo is in the first column and in the second column it has been referred to as lsquo Punjab National Bank rsquo . Section 4 of 1970 Act provides that on commencement of the Act undertaking of every existing bank shall be transferred to and shall vest in the corresponding new bank. 8. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, Punjab National Bank is a Government company under section 617 of the Companies Act. The view taken by the courts below that the bank is registered company and, therefore, it is exempted from insolvency proceedings mdash does not suffer from any illegality. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Petition dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 906 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r-affidavit by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The ground indicated is that a complaint has been filed by the Government (Department of Company Affairs) against the petitioner before the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India under section 21 of the Cost and Works Accountants Act, 1959, as the petitioner had failed to submit the audit report of the said company in spite of specific instructions of the Government to do so. As of today, the aforesaid complaint is pending for disposal and, therefore, the action of the respondents in refusing to approve the proposal of respondent No. 3 could not be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Besides, the said proposal was for the period ending on 31-3-1999 and 31-3-2000. The proposal was not approved and, therefore, in the meantime, fresh proposal must have been sent and cost accountant in terms of section 233B must have been appointed by respondent No. 3. Accordingly, I find no merit in these petitions and the same stand dismissed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 905 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... been taken and it is that some action which sponsoring authority wants by the detaining authority which was contemplated through proposal. It is nothing but a confirmation. According to Anderson Law dictionary lsquo approve rsquo means to accept as good or sufficient for the purpose intended, to confirm authoritatively. 12. As has been rightly conceded by the learned counsel for detaining authority under the Act there is no scope for approval. The satisfaction requisite for an order of detention has to be arrived at by the detaining authority himself. The position is not the same when he merely approves an action. Above being the position, we are satisfied that the detaining authority had not applied his mind and he merely approved the draft order prepared earlier. That, according to us, vitiates the order of detention. The same is accordingly quashed. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case/proceedings.
-
2001 (5) TMI 904 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... been taken and it is that some action which sponsoring authority wants by the detaining authority which was contemplated through proposal. It is nothing but a confirmation. According to Anderson Law Dictionary lsquo approve rsquo means to accept as good or sufficient for the purpose intended, to confirm authoritatively. 12. As has been rightly conceded by the learned counsel for detaining authority under the Act there is no scope for approval. The satisfaction requisite for an order of detention has to be arrived at by the detaining authority himself. The position is not the same when he merely approves an action. Above being the position, we are satisfied that the detaining authority had not applied his mind and he merely approved the draft order prepared earlier. That, according to us, vitiates the order of detention. The same is accordingly quashed. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in connection with any other case/proceedings.
........
|
