|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 654 Records
-
2003 (9) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n. The brand name ”ELEX”, according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Pritam Singh who is the proprietor of the appellant’s firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, in the manufacture and clearance of the goods in his individual capacity. He cannot be legally said to be running another firm of M/s. Elex Knitting Machinery, as single person cannot constitute any firm under the law. Therefore, being already co-owner of the brand name, he was competent to use the same. 7. In light of the discussion made above, the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 could not be legally denied to the Appellants. Therefore, the impugned Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal of the Appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.
-
2003 (9) TMI 765 - SUPREME COURT
Whether non-publication of a final electoral roll would render a general election invalid in law under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
-
2003 (9) TMI 764 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d not produced any document by appearing in the witness box and proving those documents which would substantiate the allegation against the petitioner. Secondly, the delinquent officer was supposed to have been served with the list of witnesses as well as the documents along with the charge-sheet so as to give a correct picture that what was the allegation against him and how it was sought to be substantiated by oral as well as documentary evidence so as to facilitate him to file his written statement. This was not done. Normally, if anyone has to be charged then he/she has to be given a fair trial. In the present case it is unfortunate that the delinquent has been dismissed from service without giving him a fair, proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. 7. Therefore, in this view of the matter the view taken by the learned single Judge appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2003 (9) TMI 763 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is no equity in favour of respondent No. 3, inasmuch as he knew that his result has been withheld because of the allegation of having used unfair means in the Examination?
-
2003 (9) TMI 762 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n, irrefragably the Court can entertain the application for grant of anticipatory bail because it is not the nomenclature which should govern the scenario but the real essence. We may repeat at the cost of repetition that our observations do not clothe the Court with the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section of the Code and transgress the enacted provision inasmuch as we have held it to be intra vires but we only say that if the accused can, by clarificatory means with substantial material putforth and bring it to the notice of the Court that the offences which are encapsuled under Section 59-A (i) of the Act are really not in respect of which the accused has been roped in and sought to be arrested are actually not within its ambit or sweep and not covered by it then the eclipse created by the provision gets lifted and the accused can seek the ambit of umbrellas of Section 438 of the Code. 25. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2003 (9) TMI 761 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the accused persons were responsible for his death and the prosecution was able to prove its claims beyond reasonable doubt?
-
2003 (9) TMI 760 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the trial judge passed an order setting aside an abatement or allowed substitution of the legal representatives, no valuable right of parties was decided?
-
2003 (9) TMI 759 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the State of Bihar can levy penalty for loss or wastage of molasses? -
Whether such loss can be directed to be recovered from the respondents?
Held that:- The statutory authorities must act within the four-corners of a statute. They could take recourse to the proceeding for levy of penalty and the recovery thereof from the respondents only in the event there existed any agreement or statutory provision therefor.The statutory authorities also could not have sought to levy penalty relying on or on the basis of the audit report only. They were required to apply their own independent mind for the purpose of finding out as to whether the respondents in law had committed any breach of the terms and conditions of licence or the provisions of 1947 or 1915 Acts so as to make them liable for levy of penalty. The concerned authorities acting in terms of the statutory provisions, therefore, without any further investigation could not have acted mechanically on the audit report.
State legislature has no power to enact law levying duty on the spirit, which is not meant for human consumption thus no penal duty could have been imposed on rectified spirit.
So far as the third submission of Mr. Ray to the effect that the penalty was in the nature of compensation for the breach of condition No. 8 of the tender notice is concerned, the same has no merit. The tender notice does not provide for imposition of any penalty and in the absence of any opportunity to the distillers the penalty could not be realized nor could it be adjusted against the statutory price for rectified spirit.Mr. Ray, is not correct when he submits that such demand was made in terms of the condition of the contract in respect whereof the writ petitions of the respondents were not maintainable. Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 758 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re of the view that the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 5(3) of the CST Act in respect of the purchase turnover of prawns effected locally has to be considered by the assessing authority as directed by the first appellate authority in accordance with law and in the light of the two decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above. We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the assessing authority for de novo consideration of the claim of the assessee made under section 5(3) of the CST Act, as mentioned above. While considering the matter certainly it is open to the assessee to place any other decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter. Since the assessments relate to the years 1983-84 and 1984-85 there will be a direction to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders as directed herein above within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These two tax revision cases are allowed to the above extent.
-
2003 (9) TMI 757 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mmissioned (1)See page 667 infra. in the year 1987-88. On the consideration of the amendment made in section 3G on September 13, 1985 by U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1985 by which in sub-section (2) after the words packing of any goods the words other than electrical energy have been inserted and on consideration of the two circulars dated August 3, 1977 and October 13, 1987 issued by the Government and decisions of this court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1983 17 STR 74 and Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in 1995 UPTC 1028, it was held that the purchases made against form III-D during the year 1984-85 against form III-D and used in the commission of the plant in the year 1987-88 for the generation of the electrical energy was legal. Following the aforesaid judgment, it is held that there is no error in the order of Tribunal. In the result, the revision is dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 756 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... that person in such a case always refer a company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not as defined under section 3(42) of he Act, 1987. In view of the findings made above the application for eligibility certificate filed by the petitioner shall be reconsidered and disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of this order accepting the fact that his ice-cream manufacturing business was properly registered as a S.S.I. unit and the pollution certificate was also properly obtained. Accepting further that the petitioner is a dealer as defined under the Act, 1994, eligibility certificate shall be granted provided, other conditions prescribed under the law are satisfied or complied with. The orders dated May 30, 2000 and August 21, 2001 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 respectively are hereby set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned officer for information and necessary compliance. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree.
-
2003 (9) TMI 755 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ropriate orders. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file any additional reply within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such additional reply is filed, the authorities are to consider the original objections along with the additional objections to be filed in terms of this order and pass orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This time schedule is provided with a view to avoid demurrage liability. The authorities also may consider the release of the goods by way of accepting appropriate deposit in accordance with law in the light of a memo filed in this Court. 16.. I have already held that the conduct of the petitioner requires to be deprecated. I have also ruled that such conduct is to be arrested by way of costs. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 6,000 to the Prime Minister 39 s Relief Fund within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (9) TMI 754 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... oods by any unfair means. In several leading case it was held that before applying any penal provision and imposing penalty, mens rea of the person has to be taken into consideration. The learned ACCT, before imposing penalty did not consider this aspect of the case. We, from the available circumstances of this case find that there might have been a bona fide mistake or communication gap after arrival of the goods in question. Though we hold that the seizure is valid yet we cannot agree with the amount of penalty imposed by the learned ACCT. He should, therefore, reconsider the matter in light of the observation made above. 12. For the reasons discussed above, we set aside the order of penalty and direct the learned CTO to rehear the matter and dispose of the penalty proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 13.. The application is thus disposed of without costs. S.S. CHATTOPADHYAY (Technical Member). - I agree. Application disposed of.
-
2003 (9) TMI 753 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ound, the order was liable to be struck down. 25.. In the present case, as we find that the suo motu revision was intended to be initiated on the ground of suppression of sale. Therefore, the allegation if could have been established the levying of turnover tax certainly would have become the consequential result of the suo motu proceeding. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner, as we find, has no application. 26.. In view of the findings made above, we, accordingly set aside the order dated December 13, 2000 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the notice dated September 22, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 for initiating suo motu revisional proceedings does not stand in the eye of law. The purported notice of demand issued in form No. 33 under the Act, 1994 is thus set aside. 27.. The application is thus allowed without costs. 28.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 752 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nt of sales or an act of furnishing incorrect particulars. The notices in forms 51 and 52, in our view, therefore, are bad in law. 9.. Whether stainless steel pipes and fittings, are the declared goods or not has been decided in a case reported in 1992 86 STC 1 (Mad.) (Hindustan Wires Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu) and it was held that stainless steel pipes and stainless steel manufactured by the dealers are declared goods and exigible to tax (para 28, page 16). 10.. However, since this question is to be decided by the assessing officer in an assessment proceeding we refrain from making any positive findings at this stage. This issue is left open. 11.. For the reasons discussed above, we hold that the notices in forms 51 and 52 being illegal are liable to be set aside. The respondents are restrained from giving effect to the said impugned notices. 12.. The application is, thus allowed without costs. 13.. S.S. CHATTOPADHYAY (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 751 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... not contain any discussion relevant to the issue. The order dated January 19, 2001 of respondent No. 3 contains discussion only about the container/packing material and the reasoning given for rejection is untenable in law. His emphasis on raw material rather than goods and on the West Bengal Incentive Scheme rather than the relevant provisions in the Sales Tax Act led him to arrive at an erroneous finding or decision - which as such cannot be upheld. We therefore hold that the impugned decisions suffer from legal lacunae as discussed above and as such are liable to be set aside. In the result, the application succeeds. The order dated July 15, 1998 of respondent No. 1 and revisional orders dated October 29, 1999 and January 19, 2001 affirming the respondent No. 1 39 s order are all set aside. The petitioner 39 s prayer regarding amendment of the E.C. as prayed for is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 7.. A. DEB (Technical Member). - I agree. Application allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 750 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uch tax or not, and 3.. If the petitioner paid such taxes from his own amount, whether profit and loss accounts supported that or not. If no tax was found to be collected from customers excess amount paid would be refundable to the petitioner and if tax was collected from customers it could be forfeited by drawing a separate proceedings. 5.. In the impugned judgment, the authority has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Hitendra Nath Goswami v. State of Assam 1994 92 STC 23. 6.. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusal of the materials on record, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent, i.e., Additional Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and Superintendent of Taxes, Silchar, to consider the petitioner 39 s case in the light of the order dated June 20, 1997. The assessing authority shall pass necessary order in accordance with rules and regulations within a period of two months. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (9) TMI 749 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the copy of the order remanding the case, or by December 31, 1982 whichever is later. 7.. In our opinion in view of section 21(4) the order of the assessment having been set aside and the case having been remanded the reassessment order could be passed latest within one year from January 28, 1982 (the date of service of the order of the Assistant Commissioner remanding the case). Hence the order of the assessment could have been passed latest by January 28, 1983 but it was not passed and there was no stay order of the Tribunal till May 5, 1985. The High Court has merely set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) remanding the case to the Sales Tax Officer. 8.. On the facts of the case this petition has to be allowed as in our opinion the period of limitation mentioned in section 21(4) had clearly expired. 9.. The petition is allowed. A writ of prohibition as prayed for is issued. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 748 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... adav that bulk quantity of diesel are brought inside the local area by industrial units for use as raw material for generation of electricity. As import of bulk quantity is only available to industrial units, not to any individual and the individual has to buy the petroleum products only from the authorised petrol pump which purchases petroleum products from regional depots of nationalised companies situated within the State of M.P. It is also put forth by him that keeping in view the collective good and to avoid the evasion of tax, the notification in question has been issued. Taking note of the aforesaid stand we are of the considered opinion that the notification does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and we unhesitatingly give the stamp of approval to the same. 21.. Consequently, we hold that the writ petitions being devoid of substance are liable to be dismissed and accordingly we so direct. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
2003 (9) TMI 747 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessing authorities and there is material to support the doubt, it is the duty of the dealer (petitioner) to co-operate in the assessment proceedings and satisfy the assessing authority in relation to the doubtful transactions. The petitioner cannot expect the assessing officer to accept the oral version of the petitioner without there being any material which could be tendered by the petitioner. 7.. It is in the light of admitted fact emerging out of the record the two authorities, i.e., assessing authorities, i.e., assessing authority and revisionary authority declined to grant exemption and refused to accept that the alleged sales were of crowbar. As a consequence, relief to that extent was rightly denied. 8.. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition which is devoid of substance. In other words, the view taken by the two authorities cannot be faulted with. It is based on proper reasoning. 9.. Petition, thus, fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.
........
|
