|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 503 Records
-
2005 (11) TMI 473 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lso imposed a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 173Q. 2. We have heard both sides. Although the appellants contended that the disputed products fall for classification under CET sub-heading 3003.10 for the reason that they are not P&P medicines and the fact that the generic names of the products have been conspicuously displayed on the labels (Brand name is not shown as conspicuously as the generic name) could not make a difference and it could be classifiable under CETA sub-heading 3303.10, we find it possible to dispose of the appeal without going into the consideration for correct classification for the reason that admittedly the duty liability was discharged on this product. Therefore the credit of duty paid availed by the appellants makes the entire exercise revenue neutral. Viewed from this angle, we hold that the appellants are entitled to credit of the duty actually paid. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2005 (11) TMI 472 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt was kept outside the purview of the said Act. By way of amendment, this particular port was brought within the scope and ambit of the said Act. However, there was some delay initially on the part of the port authority to get themselves registered under the said Act. As such they could not initially collect the tax from the service taker. 15. Hence, we do not find any Illegality in collecting this arrear tax. There is no time limit prescribed either for such collection or deposit, what has been provided in the Act, is a penal measure for non-compliance therefor. As soon as the port authority got themselves registered with the competent authority under the Act, they demanded arrears with effect from the date when the particular port came within the ambit of the said Act. 16. We do not find any scope of disagreement with His Lordship. Similarly we do not have any scope for interference in this appeal. 17. The appeal is, thus dismissed without, however, any order as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 471 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ead from the printed subject matter. Based on its composition, appearance, grammage and printed matter it may be considered as a ‘Paper Board Label’. The test report do not categorically state that the printed sheets are only labels and cannot be used as packing material. Which go to prove that even the test report helps the appellants case & same to be ‘likely’ to be used & not useful/for packaging of toothbrush. In any case, the non-supply of the test report to the noticee & reliance of the same by the lower authority would confirm the findings of the lower authority that it helps the case of the noticee. In any case the same cannot be relied in appeal before us, now, (c) we do not find any merits in the case of Revenue & grounds taken do not induce us to upset the finding of CCE (A) arrived at after physical inspection of the goods. Order of CCE (A) are to be upheld. 5. Consequently the appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (11) TMI 470 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... Organization. Therefore, he has held that they do not come within the definition of service provider and also within the ambit of scientific or technological consultancy. Learned SDR strongly prayed for upholding the OIO which held that the assessee is a service provider and engaged in providing technical or scientific consultancy service. It is seen that the Commissioner has correctly analysed the matter and has held that the assessee is not a service provider for the reason that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of ferro silicon. They were only carrying on the activity of in-house development of technology which were sold to M/s. Indsil Electrosmelt Ltd., which is the assessee’s own sister concern. In the light of the ratio of the above noted judgments cited in the case of CCE v. Rubco Sales noted (supra), the order passed by the Commissioner is legal and proper. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence it is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2005 (11) TMI 469 - SUPREME COURT
Whether pre-requisites for taking such action under Section 115(1) of the Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 were not satisfied and, therefore, the order of Collector, Jajpur, dated 3.6.2003 directing suspension of the respondent was illegal?
-
2005 (11) TMI 468 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... anan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 467 - SUPREME COURT
Whether though the Court cannot moderate the appraisal and grading given to an officer while exercising the power of judicial review yet the Annual Confidential Report (in short the ’ACR’) for the year 1989- 90 has an element of adverse reflection leading to denial of promotion and, therefore, the same ought to have been communicated to the writ petitioner-respondent which has not been done?
-
2005 (11) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the trial court was right in its view that there was no scope for granting extension of time beyond the period of 90 days to file the written statement, in view of the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ’CPC’) by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 (in short the 1999 ’Amendment Act’)?
-
2005 (11) TMI 465 - SUPREME COURT
Voluntary statement - whether for non-consideration of the relevant document the order of detention is vitiated?
Held that:- It is not disputed that the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Customs (Air), Customs House, Chennai was, in fact, delivered on 7.1.2004 as is apparent from the seal on the receipt and as admitted in the counter affidavit by the State of Tamil Nadu. There is no reason why it should not have been placed before the detaining authority for his consideration. It has not been disputed that the said letter of retraction contained relevant material, which ought to have been considered by the detaining authority before passing an order of detention. Since relevant material was withheld from the detaining authority, the order of detention must be struck down as being illegal. We accordingly, quash the order of detention. We should not be understood to have laid down a broad proposition to the effect that a letter addressed to any officer of any Department of the Government would amount to service thereof on the State. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts of this case, we have found that the detenu addressed the letter of retraction to a responsible officer of the Department of Customs and in the circumstances he had no choice in the matter, as he could not anticipate that an order of detention may be passed and therefore, the letter should be addressed to the sponsoring authority. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 464 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... examine the veracity of the account books in depth. I find absolutely no merit in the submission that the account books should have been examined by the Tribunal being the last fact-finding authority. It may be noted here that on the earlier occasion the Tribunal by its order dated July 11, 1991 which has become final between the parties had directed that in view of the shifting stand taken by the applicant at different stages of the proceedings the examination of the account books in detail is required and as such the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner is perfectly just and legal. In view of this direction of the Tribunal in the order dated July 11, 1991 which has become final between the parties it is no longer open to the applicant to insist that his account books should be examined either by the first appellate authority or by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000.
-
2005 (11) TMI 463 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd the assessment order are scrutinised, it is perceivable that the said aspect has not been specifically dealt with. The assessing authority has proceeded on a different criteria altogether. There was an earlier order by the highest authority in relation to the area where the petitioner was operating. If the area has changed, the matter would be different. If the law has changed the definition, the matter would be different. The interpretation given by the Board of Revenue, in my considered opinion, has not attained finality. In view of my preceding analysis, the notice to show cause and the order of assessment are quashed. If the assessing officer finds that there is a change of fundamental fact, he would issue notice for reopening of assessment. This order is restricted to the facts of the present cases as there had already been a determination with regard to the local area. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 462 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ons of limited nature, as explained above, so long as such directions do not tantamount to granting stay . In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Anant Mills 39 s case AIR 1975 SC 1234 that it is permissible to enact a law to the effect that no appeal shall lie against an order relating to an assessment of tax unless the tax had been paid, nothing remains for us to decide as to whether the impugned proviso suffers from any constitutional infirmities. The law is so well-settled that the Legislature in its wisdom may impose accompanying liability upon a party upon whom a legal right of appeal is conferred or to prescribe conditions for the exercise of the right. In the result, we hold that the proviso is a valid piece of legislation, which does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and shall accordingly stand dismissed without any orders as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 461 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of appeal but did not pay the required amount along with the presentation of the appeal as is required in law. The submission that the petitioners could not comply with the onerous condition and the right of appeal becomes in such a case illusionary is not acceptable. The right of preferring appeal cannot be said to have been whittled down because of the requirement of making pre-deposit of specified amounts as provided for under the very law under which the right of appeal has been provided. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent the statutory procedures. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution and review the impugned provisional orders of assessment on merits. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider the submissions and refer the judgments cited at the Bar. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 460 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 29A could be exercised by the officer when he has reason to suspect that the goods are not covered by proper and genuine documents. Suspicion is the initial stage of believing the existence of a certain thing and then on the basis of the available materials, a conclusion is arrived at. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal, expected of a normal person. In such a situation, the learned single Judge was not justified in exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfering with the opinion formed by the officer. By the interim order granted by this court, goods were released and the party could not be traced. State is a loser by evasion of tax. Hence we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge. It is open to the authorities to take further action on the basis of exhibit P7 notice and proceedings, if any, pursuant thereto. Writ appeal is disposed of. Order on C.M.P. No. 230 of 1999 in W.A. No. 96 of 1999(E) dismissed.
-
2005 (11) TMI 459 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessment orders has been paid and reached the coffers of the State. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed without any orders as to costs. The assessment orders passed for the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 (copy of annexures A, Al and A2 respectively) are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. Rule made absolute. A consequential mandamus is issued directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner as one for refund in terms of rule 20 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 read with section 12 of the Act, inasmuch as, once the assessment orders are quashed, all payments made under the assessment orders become excess payment and the petitioner can definitely claim for refund by filing an application under this provision. On production of satisfactory proof of tax having been paid, the assessing authority shall pass orders for refund within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such application by the petitioner.
-
2005 (11) TMI 458 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etrospectively. The power is given to the Government as a subordinate legislative authority to notify the exemption. The notification also does not state that the exemption is retrospective in operation. Therefore, the notification and exemption can only be prospective in operation and cannot be given retrospective effect. We think this appears to be the correct position in law and therefore, we are in full agreement with the observations made by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court on this aspect of the matter. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2000-2001 by its order dated February 28, 2005. Therefore, while confirming the findings and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, we reject the present revision petition filed by the petitioner-company. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.
-
2005 (11) TMI 457 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he decision of the apex court in E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2000 117 STC 457 2000 2 SCC 321 wherein the court interfered with the facts and imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee had not acted in defiance of law or that the assessee was dishonest or that it had failed to adhere to discharge their obligation under the Sales Tax Act. Considering the totality of circumstances and examining the legal principles, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of these cases. We therefore hold that the assessee is not entitled to get concessional rate of tax since motor vehicles were sold not to CSD but to Defence personnel and hence not entitled to claim concessional rate of tax under entry 6 of the Third Schedule to SRO No. 1091/99. We therefore sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge and dismiss both the appeals and the writ petition.
-
2005 (11) TMI 456 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case, should be separately considered on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits. 4. Subject to the paragraphs 2 and 3 above the Instruction No. 1979, dated March 27, 2000 as clarified subsequently in Instruction No. 1985, dated June 29, 2000, will continue to govern the decision for filing of departmental appeals. 5. This instruction will come into effect from October 31, 2005. It is high time the State Departments stop approaching the higher courts like ordinary litigants, having lost before two appellate forum created by themselves under the Act, in a mechanical fashion, burdening the Public Exchequer and Public Servants who indulge in such prolific litigation are brought to book fixing their responsibility in this regard. Therefore, with these words of caution, the present revision petition of Revenue is dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department and Chief Secretary of the Government of Rajasthan immediately.
-
2005 (11) TMI 455 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... riod in question. In view of the foregoing discussion, reliance placed on the decision reported in 20th Century Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2000 119 STC 182 (SC) does not advance case of the petitioner and is clearly distinguishable on facts of the present case. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the legislative competence of State Legislature to tax transaction in the course of inter-State sale. The law laid down is with regard to taxing event qua the situs of sale, which is not the question for determination in the case on hand. Thus, there is no merit in the present frivolous writ petition and same deserves to be dismissed with costs. Office is directed to remit the security amount deposited by the petitioner to the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh State Legal Authority, High Court Bench, Indore, for the proper utilisation of amount in accordance with law. In the result, writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
2005 (11) TMI 454 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion? Assessee is a dealer in skimmed milk powder . The assessee claimed that skimmed milk powder must be regarded as milk in dehydrated form and therefore eligible for exemption granted in the notification. The assessing authorities as well as the Tribunal rejected this claim. The learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the division Bench of this court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Indian Dairy Corporation 2001 124 STC 395 1997 25 APSTJ 77, held that skimmed milk powder is nothing but dehydrated form of pasteurised milk and therefore eligible for exemption under G. O. Ms. No. 20, dated January 2, 1980 issued under section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Under the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal and authorities below are reversed and the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is directed to revise the assessment granting the exemption to which the petitioner is entitled. Accordingly the tax revision case is allowed. No costs.
........
|
