|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 786 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Abatement of duty ... ... ... ... ..... condonable. The contention of the appellants is that in the present case the shortage was less than two per cent. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. emsp The contention of the revenue is that molasses were stored in steel tanks, therefore, the plea of the appellants that the loss is due to evaporation, is not acceptable and ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. emsp In this case, the molasses were stored in 5 steel tanks and the shortage of the molasses is less than two per cent of the recorded balance in their statutory record. The fact that shortage is less than two per cent is not disputed by the revenue. The CBEC, vide letter dated 18-7-83 clarified that two per cent loss in respect of molasses stored in puccka pits and steel tanks is condonable. As in the present case the shortage is less and than two per cent of the recorded balance and in view of the above letter of CBEC, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 785 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ification application, the impugned order does not contain any reasoned decision apart from an averment, ldquo I find that there is no scope for modification of ISO. rdquo The learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have disposed of the modification application on its merits by way of a speaking order. The appellants have made out a case for remand. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the present appeal by way of remand. The learned Commissioner shall consider the modification application dated 9-1-2002 on its merits and pass a speaking order thereon after hearing the applicants. Subject to the results of the modification application, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall consider the assessee rsquo s appeal on its merits and pass a speaking order thereon in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. In view of this order, the interim stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) will stand stayed till the modification application is finally disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 784 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... sed of on its merits by the Assistant Commissioner in a manner befitting a quasi judicial authority. This situation warrants a remand of the matter to the original authority. 4. emsp In view of the above, I allow the present application and recall Misc. Order No. M/76/2002/NB(SM) as well as Final Order No. A/1519/2001/NB(SM). 5. emsp Both the lower authorities disallowed the Modvat credit taken by the appellants on the strength of original copies of invoices. Hence the appeal before me. 6. emsp Heard both sides. 7. emsp For the reasons already stated, I set aside the orders passed by both the lower authorities and allow this appeal by way of remand, directing the original authority to adjudicate the admissibility of the Modvat credit on original copies of the invoices, afresh in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, after disposing of the asseesse rsquo s application dated 10-3-95 on its merits in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.
-
2002 (9) TMI 783 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Maintainability ... ... ... ... ..... erson in whose name the bill of entry is filed does not cease to be the importer. In other words, the person who has secured the release of the goods from the carrier, who has filed the bill of entry and who has undertaken the work of clearance, continues to be an importer. The definition, as reproduced above is designed to protect the interests of the owner or exporter where the goods have not been claimed or redeemed by the designated importer in India. The definition cannot be used to usurp the identity from the person who filed bill of entry. 3. emsp In the present case, the claim that he is an unpaid seller does not confer upon him the privilege of an importer. M/s. Joginder Casting having been treated as an importer in the entire proceedings that title cannot be claimed by the present applicant. 4. emsp We thus find that the appeal filed is not maintainable since the appellant does not have any locus standi. We dismiss the appeal. The application also, stands dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 782 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Processing of fabrics - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ng, etc., with the aid of power, they are not entitled to the benefit of the Notification as mentioned above. However, we find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the learned Commissioner has committed illegality while taking into account the length of the galleries as mentioned above. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 679 has held that the length of galleries is not to be counted while working out the annual capacity of production. Therefore, the impugned order cannot stand scrutiny to this extent and is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the annual production capacity worked out also goes away and the same may have to be recalculated. Therefore, we consider it necessary to remand the appeals to the adjudicating authority for recalculation of the annual production capacity as mentioned above and pass a fresh speaking order in this regard. The appeals are accordingly remanded.
-
2002 (9) TMI 781 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Cenvat - Clearance of inputs for home consumption - Penalty - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... e same and, in fact, have discharged duty liability even before the issue of the show cause notice. We do not agree with the learned Advocate that as they have discharged the duty liability before the issue of show cause notice no penalty is imposable on them. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Z.V. Nagarkar case that the person concerned shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in Rule 173Q and it is difficult to accept the arguments of the Appellants that the levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. In view of this coupled with the fact that the goods were removed without payment of appropriate duty the penalty is imposable on the Appellants. However, taking into consideration the facts that they had discharged their duty liability on noticing the omission, a nominal penalty will meet the end of justice. We, therefore, reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 15,000/-. The Appeal is disposed of in above manner.
-
2002 (9) TMI 780 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Revision of Price ... ... ... ... ..... claim was made that the correct price was HFL 6430. The duty excess paid of Rs. 1,75,168 was sought to be refunded. 3. emsp We have seen two signals from the suppliers, dated Jan. 1989 and 14-2-89 confirming the price in HFL and offering a credit note to be issued by the supplier for the excess value charged. The credit note is not available for perusal. The claim was lodged in August 1989. 4. emsp Section 149 of the Customs Act permits amendment of the bills of entry where the documentary evidence was in existence at the time of clearance of the goods. The correspondence of the record does not fit the time frame. The actual remittance made to the suppliers is not produced to substantiate the claim of lesser value having been charged. 5. emsp In the absence of the satisfactory documentary evidence, the authorities were correct in dismissing the appeal filed under Section 149 of the Customs Act and also the consequential benefits. The appeal does not sustain and is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 779 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Limitation - Duty whether paid under protest ... ... ... ... ..... d the same have been sanctioned wrongly. As regards the refund of Rs. 8,987/- claimed in respect of the invoice No. 1, dated 14-11-96, it is observed that the protest letter is also of the same date. It is however, observed that whether this duty can be considered to have been paid under protest under the provisions of Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has not been examined by the Original Authority. The matter of refund of Rs. 8,987/- whether time-barred or not would therefore call for re-examination by the Original Authority and recording his findings afresh. In view of this analysis, the Revenue Appeal against the sanction of the refund amounts of Rs. 3,675/- and Rs. 3,442/- is allowed and the case of the refund of Rs. 8,987/- is remanded to the Original Authority for de-novo consideration and passing an order afresh. Both the sides shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of representing their case before him. Revenue Appeal is thus disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (9) TMI 778 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat/Modvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... 4 of the said Table was also eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q(1) vide Sl. No. 5 of the said Table. Thus the replaced parts which were received by the appellants duly fitted in those motors were received by them under the cover of said invoice-cum-challans. Those (replaced) parts were covered under Rule 57Q(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide Sl. No. 5 of the Table. No dispute has been made that those replaced parts were not replaced by M/s. KEC while repairing the said motors. Thus the said replaced parts were duly received by the appellants which were duly fitted in those motors otherwise the same would have been a point of dispute in this case. The appellants were, therefore, eligible for said credit. rdquo 6. emsp Having examined the provisions of Rule 57Q as the Rule stood at the material time, I am in full agreement with the above decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and I find no valid ground in this appeal against that decision. The appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 777 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Appointment of Arbitrators ... ... ... ... ..... n Arbitrator in terms of the agreement whereas the letter dated 27-12-2001 was addressed to the Executive Engineer only, who neither had any authority to appoint an Arbitrator nor could do anything in the matter of non-appointment of an Arbitrator. This Court, therefore, does not agree with the plea raised by the respondent that in view of the letter dated 27-12-2001, the respondent was under no obligation to appoint an Arbitrator in response to the notice dated 18-12-2001. 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and Hon rsquo ble Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorthy, a retired Judge of Delhi High Court, is appointed Arbitrator for entering upon the reference and adjudicating the disputes between the parties arising out of the agreement dated 18-4-1996. The Arbitrator shall fix his own fee. The parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 21-10-2002 at 4.00 p.m. A notice be issued to learned Arbitrator also. 6. Copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for both the parties.
-
2002 (9) TMI 776 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Infringement of trade marks ... ... ... ... ..... this juncture, which it has nurtured for the last more than seven years, in my view, would result in suddenly bringing its business to a grinding halt, which may ultimately amount to a civil death for the first defendant. Thus, in my view, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the first defendant and not the plaintiff, insofar as this aspect is concerned. 27. Consequently, I restrain the defendants from using the trade mark lsquo House of Atlas rsquo or any other mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff rsquo s trade mark lsquo Atlas rsquo in respect of bicycles and bicycle parts till the disposal of the suit . However, there will be no injunction in respect of its user as the corporate name of the first defendant. 28. Any observation touching the merits of the case is purely for the purpose of disposal of this application and shall not be construed as expression of final opinion in the matter. The application stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 775 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Suspension of legal proceedings, etc ... ... ... ... ..... mpany informing the latter that the reference made under section 15 of the aforesaid Act stands registered. It is obvious that an inquiry is pending before the BIFR under section 16 of the aforesaid Act. In view of the bar contained in section 22 of the Act, the respondents cannot recover the assessed amount without prior permission of the BIFR. In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to recover the assessed amount from the petitioner-company without prior permission of the BIFR. This direction will operate till such time the inquiry is pending under section 16 of the Act and in case any scheme is framed under section 17 of the Act or is under preparation till such time the scheme is prepared or sanctioned or implemented and even during the pendency of an appeal before the competent authority under section 25 of the Act. The impugned order Annexure P-3 stands modified accordingly. No costs. Writ petition disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 774 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Meetings and proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... of the Calcutta High Court in Ruttonjee and Co. rsquo s case (supra) is concerned, the decision was rendered under the provisions of section 186 of the Act and we are of the view that the decision of the Calcutta High Court is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the present case, it was found that the company did not hold Annual General Meetings for three years in succession and its accounts were also not audited and we are of the view that the prolonged delay in holding and convening Annual General Meetings will not be either in the interest of the company or of the member/shareholders. 14. We find that the Company Law Board has properly exercised its discretion and accordingly, we do not find any question of law that arises out of the order of the Company Law Board. We find that there are no grounds made to interfere. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed in limine, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 13425 of 2002 is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 773 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Suspension of legal proceedings, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... e decided only by the machinery constituted under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and it would not fall within the ambit of the Rent Controller. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner, when a special machinery is constituted under the Special Act to find out whether an industry is a sick industry or not, any order that would be passed by the Rent Controller would prejudice the right of the Revision petitioner. I see some force in the said argument. Therefore, the observation of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the question whether the revision petitioner company is a sick industrial Company or not would be decided by the Rent Controller after letting in evidence , is liable to be set aside and the same is, hereby set aside. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the observation made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, as indicated above, is set aside. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. 10573/96 is closed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 772 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Application to Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... on and from 17-1-2000, it has become unnecessary for this Court to give a finding whether the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 13-1-1998 is legal or that has got to be upheld. The learned Advocate for the first respondent bank has submitted that under sub-section (11) of section 19, the applicant has got every right to oppose the counter claim that is made or that would be made by the defendants. In the said circumstances, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered to consider the counter claim of the defendants and also the objections if any that would be raised by the applicant as provided under sub-section (11) of section 19 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, connected CMP is closed. As the matter relates to the year 1987, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is directed to dispose of the Transferred Application No. 68 of 1996 as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 771 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Awards - Grounds for setting aside ... ... ... ... ..... nsate the other party to the agreement. The appellate Court was, therefore, not justified in disallowing the claim of the appellant for Rs. 20,000 on account of damages as expected profit out of the contract which was found to have been illegally rescinded. 3. Applying the ratio of this decision, the submission referred to above advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 that profit of 10 per cent ought to have been calculated on aforesaid estimated cost instead of contract amount, deserves to be repelled being without any merit. Arbitrator had rightly awarded expected reasonable profit of 10 per cent on Rs. 14,54,639 being the amount of contract to the petitioner. 4. Consequently, IA No. 7834/94 is dismissed and award dated 27th January, 1994 is made the rule of Court. In case respondent No. 1 fails to pay the decretal amount to the petitioner within a month from today, the petitioner will be entitled to future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 770 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Awards - Grounds for setting aside ... ... ... ... ..... n made in between filing of award by the arbitrator suo motu and filing of award by him at the instance of a party to the agreement. Both these decisions fully support the contention referred to above advanced on behalf of respondent that where award is filed in court by the arbitrator not suo motu but at the instance of a party to arbitration agreement said Article 119(a) would apply and the award if filed beyond 30 days period will be barred by limitation. In none of aforementioned decisions relied on behalf of petitioner the question of filing of award by the arbitrator at the instance of one of the parties to arbitration agreement was either in issue or considered. In the said backdrop and the ratio in aforesaid two decisions, the filing of award dated 7th August, 1995 was, obviously, barred by limitation. 3. Therefore, while allowing objections (I.A. 1273/98), the filing of said award is held to be barred by limitation and the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 769 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Power to call for information from financial institutions and to give directions ... ... ... ... ..... are not inclined to proceed on the basis of this petition filed by the petitioners qua the Kuber Group of Companies, still keeping in view the public interest and since the matter has travelled thus far, we deem it proper to pursue the matter ourselves for finding a viable solution to the problem. While doing so, we have in mind the interests of the Kuber Group as well as thousands of small depositors. Endeavour is that depositors are also able to retrieve maximum amount of their deposits and company is also able to survive, if possible. 30. With this intention in mind, we direct this Group, namely, respondent Nos. 43 and 44 to submit fresh scheme also keeping in view the orders of the Mumbai High Court in the pending petition within a period of eight weeks from today. Based upon the nature of the scheme submitted by this Group, further directions as deemed proper can be issued. 31. The matter is listed for directions on 13th November, 2002. 32. All these CMs stand dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 768 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Non-banking Financial Institutions ... ... ... ... ..... hat the schedule of payments was highly onerous as it envisaged 70 of the payment in the first year itself. The application then sets out the various proceedings and steps taken by Rockland to liquidate its debts. Eventually, in para 24 of the application, Rockland asks for rescheduling the payments to the depositors on certain lines. Given the conduct of Rockland and its Directors, there is nothing to suggest that the application was made bona fide it appears to have been a last ditch attempt to further buy time. Rockland took no concrete steps during the pendency of the application to show that it really meant to fulfil its commitments . The application does not deserve to be entertained and is rejected. It is so ordered. 24. This examined the entire length and breadth of the matter and going into the nitty-gritty thereof the Company Judge was constrained to order the liquidation. 25. In view thereof we do not find any merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 767 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Appointment of Arbitrators ... ... ... ... ..... on dated 17-4-2001. It was in this context that these arbitrators had expressed their inability to appoint the third arbitrator and had asked the parties to seek his appointment under section 11(4) of the New Act. All this shows that nomination/appointment of Justice Mishra on 15-2-1999 had remained on paper only and had not taken effect at any stage. Therefore, even if it was assumed that the designated authority had proceeded on alleged wrong premise of Justice Mishra rsquo s absence of consent, the fact remained that his appointment as umpire had not fructified or crystallised at any stage to bar any further appointment of the third arbitrator. The question of terminating his mandate or replacing him in exercise of administrative power under section 11(4) of the new Act did not arise. 5. We accordingly find nothing wrong in the orders passed by the designated authority appointing the third arbitrator. This petition accordingly fails on preliminary hearing and is dismissed.
............
|
