|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 655 Records
-
2005 (7) TMI 652
Whether all the applicants were duly served and the Registry has rightly reported in the Office reports?
-
2005 (7) TMI 651
... ...
... ... ..... ed. We see no reason to interfere. The Civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 650
... ...
... ... ..... shows that the controlled compressive shrinkage imparted to the machine is lasting one and therefore process passes the test of lasting character which amounts to manufacture. 26. I find that this argument without meant as the technical opinion which is on record and as per the technical opinion the process undertaken by appellant is not a lasting change. 27. As no contrary evidence is produced by the Revenue to show that the process is undertaken by the appellant amounts to shrink proofing. In view of the above findings, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue, by agreeing with the findings of the Hon’ble Member (Technical). The appeal is dismissed. The appeal papers be placed before regular bench for further necessary action. Sd/- (S.S. Kang) Vice-President MAJORITY ORDER 28. In terms of the Majority order, the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in open Court on 26th July, 2005) Sd/- (T.K. Jayaraman) Member (T) Sd/- G.A. Brahma Deva Member (J)
-
2005 (7) TMI 649
... ...
... ... ..... n of the machinery is cleaning, sorting or grading and therefore by virtue of Note 4 to Section XVI of the Tariff Act, the machine will be classifiable under Heading 84.37 which covers machinery used for cleaning, sorting or grading, seeds, does not have any substance particularly when we are of the view that Note 4 is not applicable as the machinery in question is performing more than one function. Note 4 to Section XVI covers machine consisting of individual components intended to contribute together to a clearly defined function and since machinery is performing function both of parboiling and also cleaning, sorting and since heat exchanger is used for the purpose of parboiling, Revenue rightly relies upon HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 84.37 at page 1321. We therefore accept the contention by the ld. DR that the item in question falls for classification under CET sub-heading 8419.00 set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (7) TMI 648
... ...
... ... ..... al’ and valuation influence, if any, is now settled by the S.C. vide its decision in case of International Auto Products (P) Ltd. 2005 (183) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.) in favour of the assessee. The duty demands made therefore, for the period 1-10-1992 to 30-9-1995 cannot survive. The penalty under Section 11AC also will meet the same fate. 2.2 As regards demands for the period 11/97 to 3/98, of ₹ 94,071/- invoked without relying on the proviso clause of Section 11A(l) and that demand is not being pressed in this appeal, the same is confirmed. However, Section 11AC penalty on this demand cannot survive as no ingredient of Section 11AC even invoked for the said demand. 2.3 Since duty of only ₹ 94,071/- is being confirmed, the base limit of ₹ 1 lakh duty prescribed under Rule 173Q(2) is not breached, therefore no confiscation under Rule 173Q(2) can be upheld. 3.1 Appeal consequently disposed by partly allowing in above terms. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (7) TMI 647
... ...
... ... ..... o classify the product in question under Chapter sub-heading 3003.10, since it bears a brand name. 4. We find that Heading 3005.30 is a specific entry for Oral Rehydration Salt (ORS). Hence classification has to be approved under that specific heading. There is no ground advanced by the Revenue to place the product in question under Heading 3003.10. We, therefore, find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2005 (7) TMI 646
... ...
... ... ..... of Bombay. This order, in our opinion, has been passed by the State Government only to comply with the directions given by the High Court. It was made during a period when the appeal against the judgment was pending in this Court. The fact that the State Government took steps to comply with the directions of the High Court cannot lead to the inference that the appeal by the Union of India has become infructuous." The expression infructuous means ineffective, unproductive and unfruitful. It is derived from the Latin word "fructus" (fruit). By implementing an order, the challenge to the validity of the order is not wiped out and is not rendered redundant. The inevitable result is that the appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it for fresh disposal on merits. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (7) TMI 645
... ...
... ... ..... ons above quoted. It is clearly mentioned that ordinarily disallowance of loss in similar circumstances in respect of assessment years prior to assessment year 2002-03 would amount to applying the provisions of section 94(7) retrospectively. The Board, therefore, cautions its officers that such an assessment should be made only after in-depth investigation and proper recording and marshalling of all relevant facts because the provisions of section 94(7) are prospective only. 142. In view of the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, we find answer to the third question in the negative, i.e, the assessee is not disentitled to have the loss arising from these transactions set off against his income from any other transactions or source. 143. In the result, we direct that the assessee be allowed loss as claimed in the assessment year 2000-01 and assessment year 2001-02 in relation to transactions considered by us in these two appeals. These two appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 644
Whether on the evidence and materials on record, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified or they require to be set aside?
-
2005 (7) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... 35,89,000/- and it has no sufficient assets to meet the liabilities. These facts could not be disputed by the respondent. Therefore, it would be just and equitable to wind up the company. This petition was admitted vide order dated 26th October 1998 and citations were directed to be published in 'The Statesman' (English) and 'Vir Arjun' (Hindi). These citations have been published and placed on record. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the company is indebted to the petitioner and is unable to pay the debts. It would also be just and equitable to wind up the respondent company. In is ordered accordingly. The Official Liquidator attached to this Court is appointed as the Liquidator, who shall take charge of the assets and records of the company forthwith and submit his report within 8 weeks. No further citations need to be published in the facts and circumstances of the case. Intimation be sent to the Registrar of Companies. 18. The petition is disposed of.
-
2005 (7) TMI 642
Whether the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada (in short "the Appellate Tribunal") and the Land Reforms Tribunal, Kakinada (in short the "Tribunal") were not justified in holding that the respondents had fraudulently taken advantage by suppression of facts; thereby taking benefit under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, (in short 'the Act')?
-
2005 (7) TMI 641
... ...
... ... ..... the provision was very much effective in operation and acts as a controlling provision or a prohibition on the officer who passes such an order. The provisional assessment order bearing No. JCCT (INT) SZ DCCT (INT-I), INS-02/04-05, dated December 13, 2004 (copy at annexure J) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - respondent No. 1 herein cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed, by issue of a writ of certiorari. Though the provisional assessment order is quashed, it is open to the respondents to pass regular assessment order in accordance with the provisions of the Act and determine the liability and recover such amount as are due to the State. Pending passing of further order on a regular basis, etc., the amount that has been paid by the assessee towards its tax liability on the basis of the provisional order may be retained and be adjusted for such liability which will be determined on a regular basis. Writ petition allowed. Rule issued and made absolute.
-
2005 (7) TMI 640
... ...
... ... ..... rit petition is for issue of directions to the first appellate authority that too to entertain the appeal after condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Condonation of delay, etc., comes only before the first appellate authority and not before this court. The mandamus sought for is to direct the authority without reference to the statutory provisions to entertain the appeal. A direction of this nature if issued, will be clearly contrary to the statutory provisions and I am of the firm view that a direction contrary to the statutory provisions cannot be issued to any authority to act in contravention of such statutory provision. See Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan 1994 2 SCC 630, paras 10 and 11. However, it is open to the petitioner to pursue his other statutory remedy including a further appeal to the Tribunal, etc. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue such other remedies as are open to him in law, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 639
... ...
... ... ..... se the impugned direction to make assessment after remand is not to the same assessing authority against whose order the appeal was filed but it is to an altogether new assessing officer and hence it is not permissible. As observed supra, I am not impressed by this submission which has no merit. In this case, the original assessment was made by an authority (A.O.) who was held to have no jurisdiction to assess. It was for this reason that the direction is issued to that A.O. who has jurisdiction to make the assessment. Indeed the assessee cannot escape their liability to get themselves assessed. The appellate authority has full power to send the case to a proper assessing authority who is invested with the assessing powers to make assessment in the case of petitioner. I am, therefore, of a considered view that this petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. The assessing authority should now ensure expeditious disposal of assessment case of the petitioner.
-
2005 (7) TMI 638
... ...
... ... ..... ecomes a precedent or a principle of law required to be followed in the subsequent case. In the present case, I do not find any bona fide at all on the part of the petitioner even to approach this court. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. 2001 124 STC 285 is concerned, a decision rendered in the context of the hardship that is pleaded by an assessee with regard to the requirement of compliance with the payment of the tax amount as a condition precedent to maintain the appeal. Situation is not the same here. The assessee only wanted to avail of a concessional facility. Concession is not a right as already observed. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case cited above is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find any justification or reason to entertain this writ petition particularly for issue of a writ of mandamus as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
-
2005 (7) TMI 637
... ...
... ... ..... ng the extent of concession that the petitioner is entitled to, that is a matter which the petitioner can agitate in an appeal before the appellate forum. The provision is an innocuous one which, if at all, provides for working out concession in terms of section 19C of the Act, even if the rule is so understood and interpreted by the assessing authority in a manner not so provided in the Rules and to the detriment of the interest of the petitioner, that by itself will not render the rule to be bad. It is open to the petitioner in such an event to pursue the matter by way of statutory remedies as provided under the Act itself. There is no occasion to hold that the rule is unconstitutional. The arguments itself is fallacious and proceeds on the premise that the rule creates a liability for payment of tax, whereas in fact the rule does not create any tax liability under the Act. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of statutory remedies, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (7) TMI 636
... ...
... ... ..... y did not dismiss the revision by saying that no such combined revision could be filed. On the other hand, it entertained it on merits and actually decided the same in so far as assessment proceedings are concerned. Accordingly and in view of the aforesaid discussion, petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated October 4, 2004 is hereby set aside. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax is directed to decide the revision on merits only in relation to the order dated April 24, 1999 passed under section 69(2) of the Act by the assessing officer (annexure P 2) in case No. 4/ 2001/Indore/Prantiya for the period from April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996 within a period of six months as an outer-limit. Petitioner to appear before the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax on August 22, 2005 and produce the certified copy of this order to enable him to proceed on merits on the revision filed by them on February 20, 2001 (annexure P 3). Certified copy within three days.
-
2005 (7) TMI 635
... ...
... ... ..... ded the case for reexamination of the factual issues. I too have to pass the same order in this case because in this case also, the authorities had no occasion to examine the issue on the lines directed by the division Bench. Learned counsel for the State could not point out any authority contrary to Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 2000 118 STC 187 (MP) 1999 23 TLD 50. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned orders dated December 28, 1993 (annexures P3, P4, P5, P6 and P 7) are quashed by writ of certiorari. The case is remanded to the assessing officer (respondent No. 5) to re-examine the case of the petitioner for the period in question in the light of law laid down in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 2000 118 STC 187 (MP) 1999 23 TLD 50, and then pass fresh assessment order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Let this be done within 6 months from the date of this order. No costs. Certified copy within a week.
-
2005 (7) TMI 634
... ...
... ... ..... have not been sold and the same is in the custody of the department. If that is the position, it is appropriate for the respondent-department to return the very goods to the petitioner in this case within a period of two weeks from today. So far as the submission of learned Government Advocate that the respondent-department is entitled to take such other action for other violations committed by the petitioners is concerned, it is observed that what is examined by this court is only the validity of the orders passed by the authorities under section 28-AAA of the Act. That was the only aspect which has been gone into. This court has not examined any other violation nor have the petitioners complained about any adverse action in respect of such violations. If the petitioners have committed any other violation which attracts such action independent of the provisions of section 28-AAA of the Act, the respondent-department is at liberty to take such action in accordance with law.
-
2005 (7) TMI 633
... ...
... ... ..... units in the State of U.P. The transfer of goods from one unit to another is internal arrangement and it does not amount to transfer of goods from one person to another. From the order of the authorities below it is not clear as to whether the tin containers were sold by way of sale in the State or in the course of interState trade or commerce or in the course of export out of the territory of India. The assessing officer has found that the dealer/opposite party was not assessed on the turnover of tin containers. The Tribunal has observed that if the assessing authority has failed to levy the tax or frame proper assessment order, no fault lies with the dealer. But from the penalty order it does not appear that the penalty proceeding was initiated on this ground also. The penalty was levied on the ground that the transfer of tin containers by one unit to another is not permissible under section 4B(6) of the Act. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
........
|
