|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 886
... ...
... ... ..... een settled in favour of the appellants by a series of decision of the Tribunal such as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2000 (126) (ELT) 1014 (Tribunal)), G.K.N. Invel Transmissions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (2001 (137) ELT 527 (Tri. Del.)) and Commissioner of Customs, IDC, New Delhi v. Korin India Ltd. (2000 (141) ELT 360 (Tri. Del)). The Tribunal has held that the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India (1997 (89) ELT 247 S.C. 1997 (68) (ECR) 209 (SC)) in the context of Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules is applicable to the parallel provisions in the Customs Act such as Sections 18(2) and 27(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply to cases of finalisation of assessments. Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that the appellants herein are entitled to the refund, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2002 (9) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... rity irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently as has been held in the ruling reported in 2002 (93) R. D. 280 (AIR 2002 SC 959), Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh. Both the legal questions formulated above are answered in negative. 9. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court is based on evidence on record and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in (1999)3 SCC 722 (AIR 1999 SC 2213) Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar that if first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be regarded as suffering from an error either of law or procedure requiring interference in second appeal. 10. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate court are maintained.
-
2002 (9) TMI 884
... ...
... ... ..... Order. That apart, we do find that the said Government Order is in accordance with the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 67 of "the Act". 21. In view of our findings that the Original grants in favour of respondents 4,5 and 6 themselves are outside the ambit of the Government Orders, the subsequent orders dated 05.03.2002, modifying the conditions of area of operation can have no force. Hence, the challenge to the impugned orders dated 05.03.2002 in W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11 150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 does not require any consideration on merits. 22. For the foregoing conclusions, W.A.Nos.1752, 1883 and 1884 of 20 02 are allowed and the orders in W.P.Nos.13925 and 13930 of 2002 are set aside. W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002 are allowed to the extent indicated above. Consequently, W.P.Nos.10263, 11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002 are dismissed as no orders are required. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.A.M.Ps and W.P.M.Ps are closed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... t under schizophrenia attack. Having regard to the nature of burden on the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant has proved the existence of circumstances as required by Section 105 of the Evidence Act so as to get benefit of Section 84 IPC. We are unable to hold that the crime was committed as a result of extreme fit of anger. There is a reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of the crime, the appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of the act by reason of unsoundness of mind and, thus, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 84 IPC. Hence, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. Before parting, we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Dr. Shyamla Pappu appearing as amicus curie for the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allow the appeal. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. The words of Lord Denning have been quoted with approval in this case which have become locus classics “Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide, therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive.” 15. The answer to the question referred to above in para 4 is that the final appellate order passed in appeal under Section 104 or Order 43 Rule 1, CPC is not an order “in the course of a suit or other proceeding” and therefore, a revision against such appellate order is not barred by the Proviso to Section 115(1), CPC.
-
2002 (9) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Leave granted. No interim orders.
-
2002 (9) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... appeal and whether or not the appeal is barred by limitation. The appeal is technically admitted at this stage. If that hurdle is crossed and the appeal is a defect free one, it is taken up by the Court, at times with curable defeats. The second stage is the satisfaction of the High Court that substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. If such questions exist then on the formulation of those questions by the High Court, accepted for hearing. At these two stages, the respondent has no right of hearing. If the second appeal survives these two stages then the third stage begins and the respondent enters the scene. The appeal then comes up for hearing. So in the instant case at the initial stage of formulation of the substantial question of law by the High Court the respondent has no right of being heard. The contentions of Mr. Chatterjee are thus overruled. We now, therefore, take up this appeal for hearing under Order 41. Asok Kr. Ganguly, J. Hrishikesh Banerji, J.
-
2002 (9) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... court while dealing with the defence ought to act with proper circumspection and caution, since the same is an exception rather than a rule. The evidence pertaining to the injuries as sustained by the accused person do not inspire our confidence as regards the correctness of the same. In any event, those injuries are rather minor in nature and they are restricted to mere abrasions. There was no wound or serious injury which may prompt him to commit heinous crime of murder. 6. In any event, it is now well settled that concurrent findings of the fact ought not to be interfered with by this Court unless there exist on record a finding which is totally perverse resulting in manifest injustice. 7. In the matter in issue, we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions made in support of the appeal that there exist some perversity warranting intervention of this Court. 8. On the wake of the aforesaid, this appeal has no merit. The appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 878
... ...
... ... ..... any other person without there being a specific declaration to that effect in terms of the Rule and the same continues till the specific authorisation since the liability for compliance stands vested with the person who is acting as the declarant. 7. The High Court has not only dealt with the issue in a proper perspective but also referred to Rule 225 wherein the responsibility of the keeper of the warehouse exists and that responsibility would entail the consequences of liability to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act or The Rules made thereunder as if he had removed the goods himself. This is an onerous responsibility and hence Rule 225 has to be read with Rule 221 in order to give the intent of the law makers its statutory efficacy. 8. On the wake of the aforesaid, we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions made in support of the appeals. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 877
... ...
... ... ..... ar, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 876
... ...
... ... ..... yat, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... ; 40,000 and debited account of M/s. Kushwaha & Kushwaha Co. This amount has directly been credited in account of Shri Suresh Chand Goyal by M/s. Kushwaha & Kushwaha Co. and further given note in the ledger folio "through Goyal Construction" and it has not routed through the Savings Bank account of Shri Suresh Chand Goyal. Meaning thereby, the account of Loaner and Loanee do not show the transaction of ₹ 40,000 correctly and prima facie appear non-genuine transaction. But it is a fact that loan of ₹ 40,000 was received in cash by assessee firm and not by account payee cheque as indicated in books of account. 5. In view of these factual position and the reasons discussed in the appeal order and the provisions of law in the light of various rulings mentioned by CIT(A) in his order, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and confirm the penalty levied under section 271D for ₹ 40,000. 6. In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... whether they have to examine I.A. Nos. 434, 435, 469, 470, 475, 476, 490, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769, 770, 771, 772 and 773 in WP(C) No. 202/1995, the Central Empowered Committee will examine these I.As. notwithstanding the fact that Shri M.K. Jiwrajka is a Member of the previous Committee. In I.A. No. 745 regarding murder of Sanjay Singh, it is stated that the widow of late Shri Sanjay Singh has been provided with an accommodation and the job will be given to her within two weeks. To come up for reporting this on 22nd October, 2002. I.A. No. 778 Issue notice. Mr. Salve, learned Amicus Curiae accepts notice. After hearing the counsel, we clarify that the claims for payment of subsidy received from various wood-based industries in respect of transport carried out prior to the date of this Court’s order dated 7th May, 2002 can be paid. I.A. is disposed of. Rest of the matters Adjourned to 22nd October, 2002. Kudremukh matter (I.A. No. 670) be listed on 23rd September, 2002.
-
2002 (9) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... terial on record and the contentions advanced would only show that what the plaintiffs are pleading by way of passing off action/character merchandising as a future potential. Real likelihood of damage or probability of damage has not been established. The defendants commercial is meant to promote their product 'Tide'. In these circumstances, to my mind, it is clear that the plaintiffs have not been able to satisfy, at this stage, that the balance of convenience is in their favour and/or irreparable injury would be caused to them, if the defendants are allowed to air their T.V. commercial. At any rate, the plaintiffs can always by compensated by way of damages if they succeed as it the plaintiffs' case themselves, that the defendants are a financially sound Company. 15. Considering the above, to my mind, no case is made out for the grant of any relief and, consequently. Motion stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, each party to bear their own costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... s that the observations therein have been made. In the case under consideration, the appellant was first searched near Kamalbaba Durgah and subsequently, he was taken to a house from where the remaining contraband was recovered. The prosecution has not led any evidence worth the name to prove that the appellant was either in possession or owner of the said house from where the contraband was recovered. In this view of the matter, the said recovery cannot be fastened on the accused/appellant. Therefore, appellant is entitled to acquittal in respect of the seizure of the contraband from the house in question. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the Special Judge, NDPS vide judgment dated 16-11-1996 in Special Criminal Case No. 17/93 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is, therefore, ordered to be acquitted of the charge. He shall be set at liberty in case he is not required in any other case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 871
... ...
... ... ..... ingly, we direct the company to pay a sum of ₹ 1 lac to the petitioner towards compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Bench. As regards valuation of shares, since the company is not doing any business now, the determination of fair value of the shares would not be appropriate. Therefore the value of the shares will be determined at face value with 12 simple interest per annum from the date of investment of ₹ 17,000/-by the petitioner in the company till the date of payment. Either the company or the respondents may purchase the shares at the value so computed and make payment within 30 days of this order. In case the company purchase the shares, its issued/paid up capital be reduced to the extent of the face value of the shares. 14. With the above directions, we dispose of the petition without any order as to cost. Liberty is granted to the parties to apply incase of any difficulty in implementing this order.
-
2002 (9) TMI 870
... ...
... ... ..... il of corporate personality and shall not give shelter to the businessmen who seek protection under the doctrine of corporate personality. 17. In the present case dues against the company are almost a crore of rupees. Hence there is no reason why recovery should not proceed against the Directors including the petitioners in both these petitions. 18. There is no mention in the writ petition of the value of the assets of the Company. This seems to have been deliberately concealed. Hence it can be reasonably inferred that the value of the assets of the Company are negligible, or a tiny fraction of the electricity dues. In this situation the only way of realizing the electricity dues is to proceed against the Directors. 19. Moreover writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction in this case even assuming that there is a violation of law. 20. For the reasons given above, both the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 869
... ...
... ... ..... or permitting the assessee to agitate questions which have been decided in the original assessment proceedings. Claims, which have been disallowed in the original assessment, cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which has escaped assessment because the controversy in reassessment proceedings is confined to matters which are relevant only in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. This is the ratio enunciated by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. - (1992) 198 I.T.R. 297. 11. In the circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal which would give rise to a question of law requiring this Court to issue direction to the Tribunal to raise and refer the same. 12. This application, therefore, stands rejected. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... given, then such a provision will not be permissible under the Constitution even after the 46th Amendment as has been held in the Rainbow's case (supra). 11. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hold that the paper on which the photographs are developed or for that matter, any material used in the developing of a photograph cannot be subjected to sales tax under the Local Sales Tax Act and such businessman is not required to obtain registration under the Meghalaya Sales Tax Act. Writ appeal would shand allowed in the above terms. 12. However, before parting with this judgment, we may observe that if it is found as a fact that the writ petitioner-appellant is selling the printing paper as such (on which developing of the photograph is to be done) or any other material required in the developing of photograph, the authorities under the Sales Tax Act would be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 867
... ...
... ... ..... ce of this case to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the other cases relied upon by the learned counsel are not relevant to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the learned CIT resorted to the provisions of section 263 because the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee without making any enquiries regarding the nature of payments made through two different Agreements entered into on the same date. The Assessing Officer also did not make any efforts to find out the nature of the goodwill paid by the assessee. Therefore, the learned CIT was fully justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer. In view of the discussion above and also keeping in view the various cases relied upon by the learned DR, we find full justification on the part of the learned CIT for resorting to the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act. His order is, therefore, upheld. 25. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
........
|
