|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 440 Records
-
2003 (2) TMI 521
... ...
... ... ..... Ass-essable value of unaccoun-ted clearances for the period from 4/97 to 6/98 Duty pay-able for un-accounted clearances for the pe-riod from 4/97 to 6/98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ### 12 (2) minus (3) &&& (6) minus (7) 12730.50 (9) x 15 1394620 27892.400 18986.95 8905.450 1943.510 6961.940 2038.000 24879853 3731978 4923.940 62684218.17 9402633 Duty payable for the period 4/97 - 6/98 9402633 &&& Duty payable and admitted for the period 7/98 - 10/98 on value of ₹ 12208 /- per MT 3731978 Total duty payable 13134611 Less duty already paid 5606978 Balance payable 7527633 ### Assessable value as per worksheet Annexure B Includes duty of ₹ 18,75,000/- admitted & paid on 1000 MTs for the period 4/97 to 6/98 on assessable value of ₹ 12,500 per MT duty of ₹ 37,31,978/- admitted & paid on 2038 MTs for the period 7/98 to 10/98 on assessable value of ₹ 12, 208/- per MT duty of ₹ 35,00,000/- paid under Protest by M/s. NKSL
-
2003 (2) TMI 520
... ...
... ... ..... case as payment was not made for formation or setting up of any trust, nor as contribution to the same. The learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision in Dy. CIT vs. Chloride Industries Ltd. (2001) 70 TTJ (Cal) 407 (2000) 111 Taxman 81(Cal)(Mag) and Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 186(Del)(Mag). We respectfully agree with the aforesaid decisions. 6. It may be mentioned here that even if the amount is not legally due yet it can be allowed as a business expenditure under s. 37 of the Act, if it is made for commercial expediency. A businessman has to incur many expenditures which are not due under any legal obligation but to facilitate the business and for commercial expediency vide Shahzadanand vs. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 246 1977 UPTC 483 (SC). Hence these expenditures made for commercial expediency even without any legal obligation are allowable as business expenditures under s. 37. 7. Thus there is no force in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (2) TMI 519
... ...
... ... ..... right to treat certain diseases. So their right to issue prescriptions or certificates cannot be detached from their right to treat. Such right to issue certificates or prescriptions is imbibed in the right to treat. One cannot and shall not be separated from the other. Once the right to treat is recognized, then the right to prescribe medicine or issue necessary certificate flows from it. Or else the right to treat cannot be completely protected. Hence, even assuming for a moment that the 1915 Notification is not there, still the appellants' right to prescribe medicine cannot be denied. In that view of the matter, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. Therefore, the respondents shall make necessary arrangements to include the names of all the concerned Diploma holders in the State Medical Register for the limited purpose indicated therein within a period of six months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2003 (2) TMI 518
... ...
... ... ..... hibition Act as raised by the respondents have not been considered by the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remit the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration by the Division Bench. Normally, the question relating to valid initiation of action or otherwise is to be decided by the original authority which was the direction given by the learned Single Judge. But at this length of time we do not think it proper to send the matter back to the original authority. With a view to shorten litigation, we remit the matter back to the Division Bench as noted above. The parties shall be permitted to place all relevant facts in respect of their respective stands before the High Court which shall consider them in their proper prospective and render its decision. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
2003 (2) TMI 517
... ...
... ... ..... We are not prepared to accept the reasoning of the High Court of Allahabad that the rule gives a blanket power to the executive to lay down specified class of offenders in relation to the offences for which they are convicted and put them outside the purview of the Act. Rule 9(4) which enables froming of rules to classify the offenders impliedly permits their classification not merely on the basis of their antecedents and their conduct in the prison but also on the basis of the offence for which they have been convicted and imprisoned. We fail to understand why such classification of offenders in relation to the nature of offences committed by them is impermissible for a limited application of the Act which aims at reforming a specified and identified classes of prisoners whose release would not be hazardous to society and who show possibilities of turning out to be good citizens if given liberty under strict supervision of specified institutions, authorities or individuals.
-
2003 (2) TMI 516
... ...
... ... ..... k Bhan, JJ. ORDER Leave granted .
-
2003 (2) TMI 515
... ...
... ... ..... he Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty (AIR 1959 SC 429). Keeping the aforesaid principles in view we feel that on the basis of the instances pressed into service by the acquiring authority and the land owner-appellants, the average can be fixed ₹ 61.50/- for both the notifications in question by adopting the extent of plotted area as done by the High Court which appears to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the rate per sq. yard can be fixed Rs.40/-. Though it was contended that there was marked variation in price relating to the instances of sale, vis--vis second notification, it does not appear, on the basis of evidence on record, that the fluctuation was of very high magnitude. The marginal differences noticed do not warrant any higher fixation of price. The entitlements of the appellants be accordingly worked out in addition to statutory entitlements, if any. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
2003 (2) TMI 514
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of this very assessee. 4. None has appeared for the assessee though this matter has been listed two-three times. 5. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Mathur. He brought to our notice the decision of this Court in case of CIT vs. Hindustan Engineering Co. (1996) 130 CTR (Raj) 433 (1995) 215 ITR 527(Raj), wherein this Court has taken the view that there is no provision for payment of interest on excess TDS. Even if refund is due on account of excess tax which has been paid in the form of TDS, there is no question of interest on that excess amount, which has been refunded after assessment. 6. Following the view taken by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Engineering Co. (supra), we feel that Tribunal has committed the error in directing to allow the interest under s. 214 on the excess TDS amount. 7. In the result, we answer the question in negative i.e., in favour of Revenue and against assessee. 8. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (2) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... limitation on the High Court to that effect." o p /o p Again at paragraph 12, this Court observed o p /o p "Payment of back wages having a discretionary element involved in it has to be dealt with in the facts and circumstances of each case and no straightjacket formula can be evolved, though, however, there is statutory sanction to direct payment of back wages in its entirety. (See Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr., (2002) AIR SCW 3008)". In our considered opinion, a further payment of ₹ 12 lacs towards back wages and for giving effect to the order of dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence would suffice. The total amount of ₹ 15 lacs shall be in full and final settlement of all claims. The payment is to be paid within eight weeks from today after making permissible deductions statutorily provided" and/or adjustments, if any, to be made. o p /o p The appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. o p /o p
-
2003 (2) TMI 512
... ...
... ... ..... b-rule (2) of Rule 57F of the Central Excise Rules provides that the inputs may be removed for home consumption or for export under bond. It has not been disputed by the Revenue that the goods in question were exported by the appellants under bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules. Once the goods have been exported under bond as such the Modvat Credit taken by the appellants can be used in the manner as provided under Sub rule (12 ) of Rule 57F. This has also been clarified by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Circular No. m283/117/96-CX dated 31.12.1997. It has been clarified in the said Circular that "clearance of inputs as such for export under bond can still be treated at par with final product and the manner of utilization of Credit in such cases will be governed by the provisions of proviso to Rule 57F(4)." Accordingly the Modvat Credit is not disallowable to the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (2) TMI 511
... ...
... ... ..... partmental Representative on this aspect are liable to be rejected. 13. Even on the aspect of jurisdiction, we find merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee. In the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (supra), Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner cannot revise assessment order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Assessing Officer. In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court laid down that, where two views are possible, and the Income-tax Officer has taken one such view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the assessment cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 14. In any view of the matter, the impugned order of the Commissioner passed under section 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. We accordingly cancel the same. 15. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (2) TMI 510
... ...
... ... ..... bove, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to send the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court shall only consider the punishment aspect, treating all other matters to be closed and to have become final. The appeal filed by the employer is accordingly disposed of while that filed by the employee is dismissed.
-
2003 (2) TMI 509
... ...
... ... ..... tration of justice. Where the non-compliance, though procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice the doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, the court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities." Irrationality, perversity and hypertechnicality are out of place while interpreting the Statutes or testing the vires of legislation. o p /o p We do not find any fault with the election petitions having been presented to and received by the Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati. The learned Designated Election Judge has rightly overruled the preliminary objection preferred by the respondents. All the appeals are held devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. They are dismissed accordingly and with costs. Counsel fee ₹ 5000. o p /o p
-
2003 (2) TMI 508
... ...
... ... ..... e Act, the Rule as also the terms and conditions of the licence laid down therefor. Only in the event of his being satisfied upon considering the objective criteria laid down therefor in the statute, he may issue a licence and as such it was not within the domain of the High Court to issue the impugned direction. It is set aside accordingly. For the reasons aforementioned, while allowing the appeal in part, we direct that in the event the respondent herein files an application for grant of licence for dealing in captive birds, the same shall be considered by the Licensing Authority upon satisfying himself about the capability of the respondent as regards strict compliance of the Act the Rules and/or the relevant terms and conditions of the licence as also the fact as to whether by reason of such grant any provisions of the said Act would be violated or not. This appeal is, thus, disposed of, but in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (2) TMI 507
... ...
... ... ..... wo sets of circumstances under which theseprovisions are attracted are entirely different. (d) Penalty imposed on the officers of the company are also setaside as all 3 of them looked after the affairs of the company inAurangabad while the substitution of imported inputs is stated tohave been carried by M/s. Divecha Glass Co. at Mumbai whichestablished that these officers did not deal with the offending goodsand dealing with goods liable to confiscation has been held to be apre-requisite for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Rule209A of the Central Excise Rules, in the case of Godrej Boyce andMfg. Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II 2002 (103) ECR 770 (Tri.) 3. In the result the duty demand of ₹ 14,50,994.34 is confirmedand the remaining duty demand and penalty on the manufacturing unitare set aside. The appeal No. E/1371/2000-Mum is partly allowed whileappeal Nos. 1369, 1370 and 1372/2000-Mum of the remainingappellants are allowed in toto. Dictated in Court.
-
2003 (2) TMI 506
... ...
... ... ..... do not deem it expedient to refer to those reported decisions in this judgment to burden the same. 29. On over all view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. We are in complete agreement with the finding, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial judge as, according to us, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, no other conclusion is possible except the one reached by the learned trial Judge. We, therefore, confirm the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial judge. 30. Seen in the above context, there is no valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Hence the appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 31. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. The judgment and order which is under challenge in this appeal is hereby confirmed.
-
2003 (2) TMI 505
... ...
... ... ..... ave committed an error in applying the multiplier of 15. The only question which is required to be considered now is as to how the multiplicand should be arrived at. The deceased at the time of accident was a young man. He had a stable job. A reasonably liberal view of his future prospects should have, therefore, been taken into consideration by the High Court as well as by the Tribunal. Having regard to the prospects and advancement of the future career, a higher estimate of the yearly income at ₹ 45,000/- would not be out of place. From the said amount, one-third of the gross income towards personal living expenses should be deducted. The amount of ₹ 30,000/- should, thus be determined as the loss of dependency. The said sum should be capitalized by applying the multiplier of 15, which comes to ₹ 4,50,000/-. This appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (2) TMI 504
... ...
... ... ..... ere is a strong motive connecting the accused with the crime for the reasons being that Kuldip Singh, nephew of accused Sucha Singh was murdered by the complainant party and the accused had nursed a grudge against the complainant party for revenge. This plea is of no help to the prosecution case. When the basic foundation of the prosecution case crumbled down, the motive becomes inconsequential. At the same time, animosity is a double-edged sword. It could be a ground for false implication, it could also be a ground for assault. In the instant case, in view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, the motive, however, strong merely creates a suspicion. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof of guilt. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any infirmity in the order of acquittal, recorded by the High Court, which warranted our interference. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
-
2003 (2) TMI 503
... ...
... ... ..... ; Special Force. Any act of indiscipline of such an employee cannot be lightly taken. In Ashok Kumar Singh's case supra, the employee was a police constable and it was held that act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. As noted by the Division Bench of the High Court, penalty of removal of service is statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee concerned to show that how penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the appellant to show, as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. On the contrary as established in the discipline proceedings, the appellant left the arms and ammunition unguarded and not in any proper custody. This aggravated the aberrations. Therefore, the order of removal from service cannot be faulted. There is no reason to interfere with the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed, but without costs.
-
2003 (2) TMI 502
... ...
... ... ..... ounted and unaccounted turnover of the assessee." 2. The Ld. Third Member has agreed with the Order of the Judicial Member. At the time of hearing of this matter for passing order in confirmity with the Order passed by the Ld. Third member, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the confirmity order under section 255(4) may not be passed in view of some miscellaneous applications pending regarding this case. The Ld. DR has opposed this submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We have considered the issue and we hold that merely because some MA's are pending regarding this case is no ground to block the passing of the confirmity order in consequence of the Ld. Third Member's Order passed already, in accordance with the provision of section 255(4) of the Act. Therefore in accordance with the majority view the issue is decided in favour of the revenue and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are rejected and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
........
|
