|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1322
... ...
... ... ..... Act and Rules as no removalsof charged off items has taken place in violation of CentralExcise Rules. It was also submitted that fact is not in disputethat goods were lying within the factory premises. 2. Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy for the Revenue. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by bothsides. In the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. reported in 1992 (60)ELT 479 (Tribunal) wherein it was clearly held that since therewas no prescribed time for consumption and further the goods inquestion were lying in the store-room within the factorypremises, the Department was not justified in disallowing themodvat credit on the presumption that the same may not be used asinput in the manufacture of final product. In the facts andcircumstances and in view of the ruling of the Tribunal in theaforesaid case, we accept the contention of the party andaccordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, ifany. Ordered accordingly. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1321
... ...
... ... ..... llants had reversed the said credit during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner. Though in the operative portion of the impugned Order, the Commissioner has not specifically confirmed the said amount so deposited by the appellants, I find in paragraph 20 of the impugned Order, that the Commissioner has observed that Modvat credit in respect of the capital goods is admissible to the noticees other than those credits reversed by the noticees. The appellants have challenged the above observation of the Commissioner. I agree with the learned Consultant that once having allowed the credit in respect of various capital goods which earlier were disputed by the Revenue, the Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the quantum of credit in respect of the same capital goods, which the appellants have reversed during the adjudication proceedings. Accordingly, I set aside the above observation of the Commissioner. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced)
-
2002 (2) TMI 1320
... ...
... ... ..... d investigation under the re-enacted Act and do not suffer from any vice of illegality or jurisdiction. The High Court committed a mistake of law in holding the aforesaid notifications as not saved under the re-enacted 1988 Act. The quashing of the proceedings on the basis of the First Information Report registered against the respondent-accused was illegal and contrary to the settled position of law. The judgment of the High Court, impugned in these appeals, is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Under the circumstances, the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgments are set aside. The Trial Courts are directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and after framing the charges decide cases on their merits. In view of the fact that the proceedings have been unnecessarily delayed and protracted by the respondents for a sufficiently long period, the trial courts are impressed upon to give priority to the aforesaid cases and conclude the trials at the earliest.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1319
... ...
... ... ..... and is an after-thought, as in the petition he has sought for implementation of the agreement. Even otherwise, this issue also as to whether the agreement is binding is covered by the arbitration agreement. Therefore, we are fully convinced that all the issues raised in the petition are covered by the arbitration agreement and in terms of Section 8 we have to necessarily refer the matter to arbitration and, accordingly, we do so. The learned counsel referred to Needle Industries case to advance the argument that even if oppression is not established, the Court is not powerless to do justice. This proposition would arise only when the petition is heard on merits. Now that we have held that the matter covered in the petition is the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement, there is no scope to examine whether the petitioner has been oppressed or not. 13. This application CA 21 of 2002 is allowed and referring the parties to arbitration, accordingly, we close this petition.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1318
... ...
... ... ..... d absent. The no-confidence motion passed against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 although passed by majority was not implemented because of the interim order of stay passed by this Court. In view of our opinion and conclusion expressed by us above by this common judgment, the interim relief granted is vacated. The Petition is dismissed. It is directed that no-confidence motion passed against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall now be implemented. In the result, both the Letters Patent Appeals and both the Special Civil Applications are hereby dismissed. All pending Civil Applications stand disposed of and interim orders are vacated. Rule is discharged. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. After pronouncement of judgment, the learned Counsel made a request for extension of period of interim relief. Since this is a matter of 'no-confidence' against the elected member, we do not consider it proper to grant any further extension. Request is refused.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1317
... ...
... ... ..... all the loans taken by the companies under the control of the fourth respondent from this company will be repaid, and the petitioner will also acquire the preference shares held by fourth respondent and his group at the face value. Till that time the Board will continue as it is and notices for the board meetings to all the directors will be sent by registered post with at least 7 days clear notice and their signatures taken in the attendance register. As and when all the obligations as per this order on the petitioner are discharged, he will purchase the other shares held by the fourth respondent and his group at face value and the third and fourth respondents will cease to be directors of the company. Till then, no voting rights held by the company in Vardhman shall be exercised in any matter which would affect the status of the petitioner or that of the fourth respondent in that company. 36. With the above directions, we dispose the petition without any order as to cost.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1316
... ...
... ... ..... e are satisfied that no interference with the orders of the Tribunal, which are under challenge, is required. The civil appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1315
... ...
... ... ..... ces and facts already narrated, we are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid decisions will have no application and, therefore, since the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court has already been decided by that very court itself and also by the Madras High Court in rejecting the appellant's application which the appellant never assailed in this Court, it would be futile to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court. An arbitration proceeding which was intended to be a speedy and efficacious remedy for an aggrieved party to which both the parties agreed, is protracting for this length of time on unnecessary issue on the question of jurisdiction, particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances already narrated. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal and direct that the Calcutta High Court would do welt in disposing of the application pending before it at an early date.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1314
... ...
... ... ..... he Constitution and, therefore, lacking legislative competence. For these reasons, Section 4(2) of the Act is declared to be unconstitutional. Consequently, the order under challenge is set aside. The writ petition shall stand allowed to that extent. Mr.V.R.Reddy submitted that the amounts, credited to the welfare fund by dealers under Section 4(2) of the Act, had been expended by the Board for purposes of the Act and the scheme so this Court might be pleased to relieve the Board of the obligation to refund the amounts to the dealers-contributors. On hearing Mr.Jain and on careful consideration of the submission of Mr.Reddy, we direct that pursuant to the declaration of invalidity of Section 4(2) of the Act, the amount of contributions, already paid by persons falling under Section 4(2), will not be liable to be refunded to the dealers-contributors by the Board. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1313
... ...
... ... ..... ar. In other words the unilateral action should be confirmed by bilateral action of the other party as well. The revenue authorities were kept in dark whether there was some agreement or not and it was an unequivocal declaration and whether the assessee has to honour its commitment in future and whether the parties if any existing would approach and demand for the payment. Since all these queries remained unanswered and the assessee has not taken care to discharge its duty to support its contention, therefore, we are not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. Under the totality of the circumstances and in the light of the discussions made above and respectfully following the latest decision of Madras High Court in the case of Sundaram Industries Ltd. (supra), wherein all the previous decisions of Supreme Court have been dealt with, we hereby reverse the order of ld. CIT(A) and accept the ground of the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1312
... ...
... ... ..... v. Collector). While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court passed the following order - “After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, on the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that stand of the respondents is correct. Various Calculations have been made and we have taken into consideration the subsequent price which has been approved by the Department with effect from 8-10-1992 and it clearly appears to us that the revision of the price was cum-duty and, therefore, the element of duty in the increased amount had to be deducted. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.”
-
2002 (2) TMI 1311
... ...
... ... ..... had granted total maximum facility of sales tax to the extent of Rs. 7,61,69,545 or for the period of eight years whichever is earlier, on chemicals and derivatives manufactured, and its decision cannot be brushed aside by the assessing officer. 15.. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order dated October 21, 1999 passed under section 22 of the Act is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 16.. In view of the above, the revision is allowed and the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, is hereby quashed. It is further directed that in view of the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Anuj Bricks 2000 UPTC 999, interest at the rate of 15 per cent shall be paid by the respondents to the revisionist from the date of deposit of amount with them by the revisionist, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 17.. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1310
... ...
... ... ..... 5 of 1997 (1989-90) of the revisionist the Application No. 3 of 1999 (1989-90) of the Commissioner of Trade Tax, could not be allowed. There cannot be inconsistency in decision. I also find that the Tribunal had not correctly applied section 22 in its order dated October 23, 1999. Thus, the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the Tribunal fixing the liability of tax only on burnt molasses is not proper in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 30. In the result, the revision succeeds, and is allowed and the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, is hereby quashed. It is further directed that in view of the decision of the division Bench of this Court in the case of Anuj Bricks 2000 UPTC 999, interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, shall be paid to the revisionists from the date of deposit of amount with them by the revisionists, within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1309
... ...
... ... ..... the show cause notice is filed that the department is required to prove the evasion of tax. Prima facie, there is evidence for evasion of tax in huge sum. This Court will not be exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India to help the tax evaders and not permit the tax authorities to probe into the tax evasion. If the petitioner-company, as a true citizen, has paid the sales tax, there should be no hesitation in submitting the explanation by way of reply to show cause notice instead of rushing to this Court. I have no hesitation in saying that interference by this Court at this stage under article 226 of the Constitution of India would be nothing but abuse of process of the Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of instant case. Thus, it is not a fit case to entertain this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4.. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1308
... ...
... ... ..... not at all attracted in the case of the petitioner pertaining to these two vehicles and in consequence, the impugned order passed by the respondent does not at all require to be quashed. The exemption granted by the Commissioner earlier based on the false particulars furnished on the part of the petitioner cannot be construed as the contra evidence made available on the part of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that the said exemption granted could not be revised by the respondent. Thus, the impugned order in all respects only deserves to be confirmed. 17.. For all the above discussions held, the well considered and merited order passed by the respondent to the facts and circumstances of the case and in adherence to the law does not at all warrant any interference by this Court as it has been sought to be made on the part of the petitioner. In result, the above writ petition does not merit acceptance and the same is dismissed. No costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1307
... ...
... ... ..... e light of changed circumstances at least since extension of the existing scheme from time to time until March 31, 1998 and ultimately while continuing incentive/deferment to expansions also along with other units with effect from April 1, 1998 it was clarified the position by using the right phrase in terms of changed industrial policy whereunder licensing was not required. 37.. We are, therefore, in agreement with the Tribunal that the State Level Screening Committee was in error in not considering the applicants in each case to be eligible merely because increase in their production did not correspond to the proposed installed capacity entered in their licences issued under IDR Act. There is no dispute that as against installed capacity and existing fixed capital investment, all the applicants fulfilled the criterion under the schemes under which they applied. 38.. As a result, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1306
... ...
... ... ..... r should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures and surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by the court. We have already quoted the relevant paragraph of the Tribunal s order and it does not require much effort to state that conjectures, surmises and suspicions have played heavily in the mind of the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, we overrule the contention that a question of law as stated does not arise in this case. 8.. In view of what has been stated above, we answer the question in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal will be required to be heard and disposed of afresh by the Tribunal in accordance with law. We order accordingly. P.K. Patra, J.-I agree Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1305
... ...
... ... ..... entation is filed by the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has filed all the required documents sought for by the respondents but the respondents have failed to act upon them as is evident from the facts of the case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a positive direction from this court. 26.. For the above reasons, we quash the impugned proceedings No. 30/3/8/07702/0772-FD dated April 19, 2000 issued by the second respondent. Consequently, we direct the respondents to issue a final eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 12,80,034.42 and grant exemption of sales tax on the said amount. 27.. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. 28.. That rule nisi has been made absolute as above. 29. Witness the honourable Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, the Chief Justice on this Monday the fourth day of February, 2002. Writ petition allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1304
... ...
... ... ..... also been held that in the said appeal, so preferred by the appellant, it will be open for it to raise all the grounds of attack, including the one which have been posed in the writ petition. 6.. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record, we find that learned single Judge has taken proper and correct view of the matter. It is no doubt true that remedy of writ petition may not be an absolute bar against the availability of an alternative remedy, but here in the case, the appellant has a remedy of preferring statutory appeal against the order of assessment. Admittedly, the said remedy has not been exhausted. Thus, we find that no case for interference is made out. 7.. Accordingly, this and the connected appeals are hereby dismissed summarily. 8.. A copy of this order be retained in connected LPAs for ready reference. Appeals dismissed. See Steel Tubes of India v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax 2003 131 STC 422 (MP). -Ed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1303
... ...
... ... ..... lace for investigation. Therefore, the cause of action arose outside the court and the authority has rightly invoked the same. 11.. Therefore, taking into totality of the matter I cannot entertain this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. However, since the order of dismissal is made on the ground of jurisdiction, it cannot be said by the court that the petitioners will not be entitled to challenge before any other court or forum any action on merit. Therefore, they are entitled to do so irrespective of the result of this writ petition. All points raised before this Court are kept open to be decided by the appropriate court or forum, if they are so advised to invoke the same. 12.. However, no order is passed as to costs. 13.. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties within a period of fortnight from the date of putting the requisites. Writ petition dismissed.
........
|
