|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 468 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 552
... ...
... ... ..... t safeguards." In our opinion the decision arrived at by the NCDRC is premature. The Commission ought to have issued notice to the respondent and taken its pleadings on record. Only when the pleadings for both parties were available should the Commission have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e., whether the questions arising for decision in the light of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation into the facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. Then the Commission could have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of diring away the complainant to the Civil Court. Mere complicated nature of the facts and law arising for decision would not be decisive. The appeal is allowed. The impugned decision of the National Commission is set aside. The case is sent back to the Commission for hearing afresh consistently with the observations made hereinabove. No order as to the costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 551
... ...
... ... ..... sed at any stage of the proceedings. ( 6. ) The plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and when the factual basis was yet to be determined, the High Court should not have exercised its power under Art.226 and embarked upon an exercise of judicial review. Indeed the High Court's order does not disclose the factual basis for its conclusion. We, therefore allow these appeals on this short ground alone without deciding the other questions raised by the parties. The appeals are accordingly allowed. We may, however, make it clear that it will be open to the added respondents to raise the contention in the proceedings before the Registrar that the claim of the appellant against the respondents is barred by limitation. We emphasise that the order of the Registrar adding the respondents as parties to the proceedings will not be reopened. We also make it clear that we have not decided any issue on the merits of the cases. ( 7. ) There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 550
... ...
... ... ..... ought similar reliefs in respect of the amount payable by the defendant No. 1, viz., Motorola Inc. In view of the dismissal of Notice of Motion No. 2557 of 2002, I find no merit in the present motion which is hereby dismissed. 65.In accordance with the undertaking given by the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 is directed to give immediate notice if it intends to cease its business activities in India and shall in no case commence its winding up operations in India without six months' notice in advance to the plaintiff. 66. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court be supplied to the parties. 67. Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, seeks continuation of the ad interim order dated 16-9- 2002 as varied by order dated 3-10-2002. Having regard to the duration for which these orders are continued, they shall continue for a period of four weeks from today. 68. P.S. to give ordinary copy of this judgment to the parties concerned.
-
2003 (8) TMI 549
... ...
... ... ..... ence in the method of computation, a duty demand of about ₹ 47,000/- has been confirmed. 3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. We feel that the whole controversy is academic and is not relevant for the purpose of computing the assessable value. The relevant legal provision Section 4(4)(d)(ii) states that “value does not include.............., the trade discount allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade at the time of removal.......”. Therefore, what is relevant is the trade discount “allowed” by the assessee. This necessarily means, “allowed” according to the method of computation adopted by the assessee, the correctness or otherwise of computation being not relevant. Viewed in this legal perspective, the findings reached and duty demand confirmed in the impugned orders are not sustainable and are required to be set aside. We do so and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 548
... ...
... ... ..... s made the liabilities claimed by the assessee were merely contingent. During the course of hearing before the learned CIT(A) the Assessing Officer has not been able to produce any material to the contrary. Before us also no particular material has been relied upon by the revenue to support its case. In these circumstances we hold that the impugned orders under section 263 as well as fresh assessment orders made by the Assessing Officer thereafter have no legs to stand. We therefore cancel the orders under section 263 made by the learned CIT and allow the assessee’s appeals in ITA No. 3373/Bom./1993 and 3374/Bom./1993. As to the revenue’s appeals the same have been rendered academic as we have quashed order under section 263 itself. Even otherwise, we find that on merits the learned CIT(A) has passed the right order. 8. In the result, while both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, the revenue’s appeals for both the assessment years are dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 547
... ...
... ... ..... osite mill and the final product at the third phase is dutiable. According to us, decision of a learned Single Member in Kailash Auto Builders Ltd. vs. CCE (A), Bangalore 2001 (47) RLT 950 (CEGAT-Ban.) relied on by the respondent-assessee is more akin to the facts of the present case. It was held therein that there is no time limit for utilising the credit and merely because there was no dutiable items, which were required to be cleared, on payment of duty on the date when the capital goods credit was taken, that credit could not be denied. We, therefore, agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to avail the credit on the capital goods installed during implementation of second phase of the project when the composite mill had reached its third phase and where the processed grey fabrics are dutiable items. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed. Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 23.8.2002.
-
2003 (8) TMI 546
... ...
... ... ..... o meet a specific contingency viz. non-withdrawal of the offer within 120 days. The contingency having arisen, Appellants were entitled to forfeit. It may only be mentioned that in the proposed Agreement there is a clasue which provides that if therre is a delay on the part of the Appellants, which results in delay in the work of collection of toll, the amount payable by the Respondent would be reduced pro-rata. Thus by reason of the delay Respondent would not have suffered. Also Respondent was well aware that 120 days would end on 28th November, 1997. Thus the Respondent was aware when he gave his offer, that acceptance could be delayed till 28th November, 1997. Thus non-acceptance till 20th November, 1997 was not a ground would justify action of Respondent in withdrawing his offer. In this view of the matter, the impugned Judgment is set aside. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. The Writ Petition of the Respondents shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 545
... ...
... ... ..... bt that appropriate remedy can be granted to the petitioner and other non-defaulting shareholders which are expressly provided in the SHA, by an arbitrator provided the relevant terms of the SHA are found to be breached by the Vodafone Group. This issue is answered accordingly. Having found all the three issues in the affirmative and the requirements of Section 45 of the Act, 1996 are duly met, the CLB is obliged to proceed in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 45 and refer the parties to arbitration, as held by the CLB in Naveen Kedia v. Chennai Power Generation Ltd. - Vol. 95 (1999) CC 640 and Magotteaux International cited supra. Accordingly, I am inclined to refer the parties to arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce as provided in Clause 23.1 of the SHA. Ordered accordingly. In these circumstances, the interim orders made by this Bench stand vacated. The application is disposed of in these terms.
-
2003 (8) TMI 544
... ...
... ... ..... nd referred to the following decisions - (1) CIT v. United General Trust Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 488(SC) (2) CIT v. Maganlal Chagganlal (P.) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 456(Bom.) (3) CIT v. Chemicals Holding Ltd. (2001) 249 ITR 540(Mad.). The learned Counsel for the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the CIT(A). 28. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has not examined the issue before him in the correct perspective having regard to the nature of assessee';s business. We, therefore, consider it proper and in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the CIT (A) on the point and restore the matter back to his file for deciding the issue afresh keeping, inter alia, the decisions relied upon by the learned D.R. and in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. It is ordered and directed accordingly. 29. For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 543
... ...
... ... ..... f final product is eligible for the Modvat. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cements vs. CCE, MP reported 2001 (46) RLT 491 (SC) 2001 (133) ELT 3 that the inputs need not be utilized within the factory premises for the purpose of availing the benefit of credit. It was also held therein that explosives used for the manufacture of intermediate product vis. Lime stone which in turn was used in the manufacture of final product is entitled for Modvat Credit. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has also accepted the said judgment and issued Circular clarifying the position vide Circular No. 637/28/2002-CX dated 8.5.2002 reported in 2002 (50) RLT M27 . In this view of the matter the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case and in this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order I uphold the same and reject the Revenue appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-
2003 (8) TMI 542
... ...
... ... ..... extent without putting shackles of avoidable cobweb of rules and regulations putting check and restrictions in the enjoyment of such freedoms. We find no reasonable ground to have put a condition of age bar, whereafter a guide may not be allowed to continue his profession as it does not fall in any of such categories which may justify placing such restrictions completely debarring him to act as guide. Curtailment of freedom must have some strong reasons and real nexus with the purpose sought to be achieved. It would not be imposed merely because it is permissible for the State to do so. For the reasons indicated above, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the orders impugned by the appellants refusing to renew their 'identity cards' and we hold the Clause No. 17 of the conditions as ultra vires and the same is quashed. The respondents shall bear the costs of the appeals, which we assess at ₹ 10,000 for each appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 541
... ...
... ... ..... Court. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise shall stand restored to the file of the High Court and the High Court will have to consider afresh the relevant aspects concerning the criteria laid down in para 22.7.2 of the Drug Policy, 1994 in relation to each drug, having due regard to the observations made in the judgment. The High Court may endeavour to expedite hearing of the writ petitions. The appeals are accordingly allowed without costs. We also consider it just and proper to give liberty to the appellant and the concerned statutory authorities to recover 50 of the 'overcharged' amounts pending fresh determination by the High Court. Accordingly, we direct stay of recovery of 50 of the 'overcharged' amount subject to the payment of remaining 50 within the period of four weeks from the date of communication of the amount payable by each of the writ petitioners. Order accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 540
... ...
... ... ..... n ignoring the facts mentioned in the Assessment Order and also the facts that the Assessing Officer’s decision is based on Board’s Circular No. 760 dated 13-1-1998 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) . 36. The grounds taken by the Revenue has already been dealt with in foregoing paragraphs and we noted therein that none of the ingredients for being owner of an asset being present in the case of the assessee- company. Further in the light of Board’s Circular and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra) and in view of the various decisions discussed therein, it would be evident that the transactions of the assessee-company were in the nature of loan and not hire purchase. 37. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 38. Consequently all the appeals preferred by the assessee-company are dismissed and the Revenue’s appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 539
... ...
... ... ..... ls?" 2. Heard Shri Majahan, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Mill. 3. There is no dispute at the Bar that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 11, and in terms of the aforesaid judgment, we request, with the understanding of the parties, the learned Tribunal to take further evidence giving both the parties - assessee as well as the Revenue, an opportunity of producing the additional evidence, and based thereon, to decide whether the machinery for which the assessee claims depreciation at the higher rate is entitled to it. It shall then draw up a supplemental statement of case and the matter shall be reheard by the High Court having regard to what is found by the Tribunal and to this judgment. 4. In view of this, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the matter and send the supplemental statement of the case.
-
2003 (8) TMI 538
... ...
... ... ..... Vice-President, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, as Third Member in this matter who vide order dt. 23rd July, 2003, has concurred with the view of the learned AM in respect of the issue referred before him. 3. In view of the above decision taken by the Hon'ble Third Member concurring with the learned AM, we hold, by majority view, that the order passed under s. 263 should be cancelled and the order passed by the AO will get restored and the liability 5 per cent shall stand. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that it is permissible for them to challenge the liability of tax in respect of the remittances notwithstanding the fact that the liability as such was not challenged originally is accepted in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Carborandum & Company vs. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 209 (1977) 108 ITR 335 (SC) at 339, 345 and the objection of the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 537
... ...
... ... ..... cases. The learned Counsel pointed out that this issue remains settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sinkhai Synthetics an Chemicals Private Limited vs. CCE, Aurangabad, 2002 (143) ELT 17 (SC). 5. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. It is not in dispute that, in both cases, original payments of duties were Under Protest. The Apex Court has ruled that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply to refunds in cases where original payments of duty are under protest. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. The appeals are accordingly, allowed, with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. The appellants' rightful claims to 'rebate' have eluded them for over a decade by now. The lower authorities are accordingly, directed to make payments of the refund amounts with utmost expedition. Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.
-
2003 (8) TMI 536
... ...
... ... ..... g that duty is demandable for the extended period. (3) Whether mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and penalty under Rule 173Q is imposable in this case and whether interest can be demanded under Section 11 AB of the Act. We have held above that the appellants cannot be alleged to have suppressed the fact from the department in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also held that mens tea cannot be alleged against the appellants and it cannot be said that there was intent on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty. Therefore, we set aside the order of imposition of penalty both under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, and so also the order of demand of interest under Section 11 AB of the Act ibid. 9. In view of our above analysis and finding, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 10. In the result, while the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits, the appeal filed by the assessee-appellants is partially allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 535
Where a person belonging to a caste or tribe specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to State A migrates to State B where a caste or tribe with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of the Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and/or Scheduled Tribes in State B?
-
2003 (8) TMI 534
... ...
... ... ..... ate of passing of the award but this section does not provide for extension of time or condoning the delay in filing the revision filed beyond the period of three months. In the absence of any specific provision for condoning delay, the delay in filing revision cannot be condoned. The petitioner acquired knowledge of the award on 10.4.2003 after notice of execution was received. Thereafter they approached the Tribunal for certified copy on 5.5.2003 and received the certified copy on the same day and the revision is filed on 30.5.2003. Thus, the petitioner has not explained the,delay between 10.4.2003 to 5.5.2003 and from 5.5.2003 till 30.5.2003. As such in the application sufficient cause has also not been shown. Even otherwise, since provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, the application is dismissed. CONSEQUENTLY , N.C.P. No. 794/03 is also dismissed and the Civil Revision is dismissed as barred by limitation.
-
2003 (8) TMI 532
Whether Collector can exercise suo-motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time?
........
|
