|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 524 Records
-
2007 (12) TMI 510 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 6th June, 2005 the file was sent to Law Ministry. Draft Appeal Memo was received on 10th May, 2006 and the Appeal was filed on 28th September, 2006. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay between 16th March, 2005 and 28th September, 2006. In our opinion the cause shown would not amount to sufficient cause. Motion dismissed. It is for the C.B.D.T., considering the tax incidence in this matter is ₹ 63,39,122/- to take action against all concerned officers.
-
2007 (12) TMI 509 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... matter at some details as the question in regard to the application of the constitutional right and in particular fundamental right cannot be thwarted only by reason of a concession made by a counsel. 32. We would, however, notice that the Election Commission before us also categorically stated that as far as possible teachers would be put on electoral roll revision works on holidays, non-teaching days and non- teaching hours; whereas non-teaching staff be put on duty any time. We, therefore, direct that all teaching staff shall be put on the duties of roll revisions and election works on holidays and non-teaching days. Teachers should not ordinarily be put on duty on teaching days and within teaching hours. Non-teaching staff, however, may be put on such duties on any day or at any time, if permissible in law. 33. Subject to the aforementioned modifications, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2007 (12) TMI 508 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Mahazar witnesses but that request was also not acceded to. Thus the main grievance of the appellants is that natural justice was denied to them. Ld. SDR is of the view that adequate opportunities were given to the appellants by the adjudicating authority. 3. In the facts and circumstances placed before us, we are of the view that the case should be adjudicated afresh by the Commissioner after enabling the parties to file effective replies to the show-cause notice and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand directing ld. Commissioner of Customs to pass de novo adjudication order after giving the appellants a reasonable opportunity of obtaining legible copies of the relevant documents relied upon in the show-cause notice and of replying to the notice thereafter as also a reasonable opportunity, thereafter, of being heard personally. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2007 (12) TMI 507 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al order is passed in favour of the revenue, the demand cannot be restored and the amount cannot be recovered. Hence, the stay petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 506 - SUPREME COURT
Dowry - harassment and demand of ₹ 50,000/- and V.C.R. - Commission of Offences u/s 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘I.P.C.’) - Application to Quash the charge sheet and the consequential proceedings arising out of First Information Report (FIR) - Appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 are respectively the father-in-law, sister-in-law and the husband of the complainant - HELD THAT:- In the present case, from a plain reading of the complaint filed by the complainant, it is clear that the facts mentioned in the complaint, taken on their face value, do not make out a prima facie case against the appellants for having dishonestly misappropriated the Stridhan of the complainant, allegedly handed over to them, thereby committing criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. Furthermore, it is also noted in the charge-sheet itself that the complainant had refused to take articles back when this offer was made to her by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in our opinion, the very pre- requisite of entrustment of the property and its misappropriation by the appellants are lacking in the instant case. We have no hesitation in holding that the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court erred in law in coming to the conclusion that a case for framing of charge under Section 406 I.P.C. was made out.
As regards the applicability of Section 498A I.P.C., We are convinced that the allegation of misbehaviour on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the demand of ₹ 50,000/- and V.C.R. by them made by the complainant in her subsequent statement, was an after thought and not bona fide. Having carefully glanced through the complaint, the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, we find that charge under Section 498A I.P.C. is not brought home insofar as appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned.
Consequently, we allow the appeal partly; quash the charge framed against all the appellants under Section 406 I.P.C. quash the charge framed against appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 498A I.P.C. and dismiss the appeal of appellant No. 3 against framing of charge under Section 498A I.P.C. Needless to add that the trial court shall now proceed with the trial untrammeled by any observation made by the Additional Sessions Judge and upheld by the High Court in the impugned order or by us in this judgment.
-
2007 (12) TMI 505 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... form of commission for arranging such gifts. The commission so paid is an out-going and is not represented by any assets or valuable article or thing. If the assessee has earned undisclosed income and has spent the same in meeting household expenses or marriage expenses then Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) may not be applicable as the outgoings have not resulted into any assets. Hence, in respect of the amount if surrendered as commission in the revised return, penalty is clearly leviable as Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) will not provide immunity to the assessee in respect of such expenditure. Since facts in all the cases are identical, therefore, penalty in respect of all the amounts surrendered in respect of gifts stand deleted, while penalty in respect of the amounts surrendered as commission paid for arranging the gifts is confirmed. It is noted that all the assessees against whom Revenue has filed appeals have been covered under s. 153A. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 504 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt of tax sought to be evaded', was inserted had in fact made no difference insofar as the main criteria, namely, absence of tax continued to exist, prior to or after 1st April, 1976, changing only the measure or the scale as to the working of the penalty which earlier was with reference to the 'income' and after the amendment related to the 'tax sought to be evaded'. The sine qua non which was there prior to or after the amendment on 1st April, 1976, was the fact that there must be a positive income resulting in tax before any penalty could be levied continued to exist. The penalty imposed was in 'addition to any tax'. If there was no tax, no penalty could be levied. The return filed declaring loss and assessment made at a reduced loss did not warrant any levy of penalty within the meaning of s. 271(1)(c)(iii) with or without Expln. 4'." 12. In the light of the exposition of law of the apex Court, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 503 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he I.T. Act, we would have appreciated the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. Section 263(1) clearly envisages that the Commissioner has powers to call for the to examine the records of any proceedings under the Act, whenever an order is passed by an Assessing Officer erroneously and it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 9. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sheshachala, proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had also sent a detail reply and though the Assessing Officer had accepted the cause shown by the assessee, did not pass a speaking order or a considered order. 10. In the circumstances, we have to answer the question of law in favour of the revenue and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer afresh after hearing the parties. 11. Accordingly, we allow this appeal. The order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.
-
2007 (12) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of confiscation of goods as well as in setting aside the order imposing penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962? c Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the goods did not become prohibited goods in terms of Section 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether these goods were sought to be cleared claiming exemption under Notification No.53/97 Cus dated 6.3.1997 (as amended) ” Issue notice to the other side. Paperbook be filed within 3 months. List the Appeal for final hearing after 3 months.
-
2007 (12) TMI 501 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee is not correct, as the said issue can be looked into if initiation of proceedings for that purpose is as per law. Hence, the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot sustain because even in the earlier judgment rendered by the tribunal and also in the judgment decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court maintaing the view of the Tribunal, held that the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 cannot be issued by the Department. The department is not however debarred to take action as per any other provision of the Act of 1994 if so permissible for recovery of Tax, if any. 6. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, since the present matter is also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories’s case, we find no infirmity in the order of the tribunal. 7. Thus, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed, as according to us, no substantial questions of law are involved in the matter.
-
2007 (12) TMI 500 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ajesh Kumar, Niluja Kumari, Mohan Pandey ORDER In the absence of proper averment in the show cause notice, we do not wish to interfere, on the facts of the present case, under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 499 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... view to augment the quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue. They must act reasonably and fairly." (emphasis supplied). There is no dispute that in the instant case the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to condone the delay. The judgment of this Court in Customs Appeal No.22 of 2004 in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/s.Wockhardt Hospital & Heart Institute, 2006 (200) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.) was decided on 28th April, 2006 whereas the petitioners had imported the goods as far back as in the year 1992. Considering the above, in our opinion, the cause shown would amount to sufficient cause and consequently the Application by the petitioners herein for condonation of delay had to be accepted. Accordingly delay is condoned. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in the light of what we have set out in the earlier part of the order. 3. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (12) TMI 498 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mponents, treated in the New fermentor and affluent treatment. Fermentor is an equipment where molasses is fermented in presence of yeast for manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol which in turn is consumed for manufacture of Acetaldehyde and Ethyl Acetate. The authorities below observed that the appellant had not mentioned the exact use and place where all these items were deployed. I find that such findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Hotline Glass Ltd. reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 69 (Tri. - Del.) held that inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods which in turn used in final product are eligible for credit. In this case, these items were used as component and fitted in the machineries, which was not disputed by both the authorities below. Therefore, denial of credit on these items is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2007 (12) TMI 497 - SUPREME COURT
Demand of Dowry - Incidents of cruelty and harassment - Application for quashing the proceedings of CC u/s 482 CrPC - Cognizance of Offence u/s 498 A and 406 IPC r/w Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Act after expiry of three years - marriage dissolved by the Superior Court at New Jersey - HELD THAT:- The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition whereby the proceedings of CC were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years.
Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC.
We are further of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, continuation of proceedings of CC will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. It is not in dispute that after marriage, Shireesha Bhavani lived with appellant No.1 for less than one and a half months (eight days at Hyderabad and about thirty days at New Jersey). It is also not in dispute that their marriage was dissolved by the Superior Court at New Jersey vide decree dated 15.12.1999. Shireesha Bhavani is not shown to have challenged the decree of divorce. As a mater of fact, she married Sri Venkat Puskar in 2000 and has two children from the second marriage. She also received all the articles of dowry (including jewellery) by filing affidavit dated 28.12.1999 in the Superior Court at New Jersey. As on today a period of almost nine years has elapsed of the marriage of appellant No.1 and Shireesha Bhavani and seven years from her second marriage.
Therefore, at this belated stage, there does not appear to be any justification for continuation of the proceedings in CC. Rather, it would amount to sheer harassment to the appellant and Shireesha Bhavani who are settled in USA, if they are required to come to India for giving evidence in relation to an offence allegedly committed in 1998-99. It is also extremely doubtful whether the Government of India will, after lapse of such a long time, give sanction in terms of Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings of CC, pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, are quashed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 496 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indian Rayon and Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhavnagar reported in 2006 (4) STR 79 (Tribunal-Mumbai) held in favour of the assesses. It is contended by the ld. DR that the said decision has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court. I do not find force in the submissions of the ld. DR. The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 7.12.2007.
-
2007 (12) TMI 495 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed
-
2007 (12) TMI 494 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar created under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act would operate unless it comes within the purview of the exceptions specified therein. Therein the question which arose for consideration related to the nature of transaction and not the terms of the grant. 30. Mr. Iyer places reliance on Tyagaraja Mudaliyar and another v. Vedathanni AIR 1936 PC 70 wherein again correctness or otherwise of the nature of document itself was in question and in that view of the matter adduction of oral evidence was not held to be a bar in terms of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. 31. Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift. 32. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and, thus, judgments of the High Court as also the first Appellate Court are set aside and that of the Trial Court restored. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
-
2007 (12) TMI 493 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... l Consultancy Services" in the category of taxable services. The Tribunal found the service in question to be of this category and held that the same was not taxable as ‘Consulting Engineer’s Service’ prior to the date on which the former was introduced under the Finance Act, 1994. In the said case, the Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Daelim Industrial Co. v. CCE 1994-2006 STT 438 (New Delhi - CESTAT) affirmed by the Supreme Court. 5. Having found prima facie case for the appellants against the above demand of tax, we grant them waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the tax and penalty amounts. Further, having regard to the high stake involved in the case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeals at the earliest. Accordingly, the appeals are directed to be posted to 17-4-2007 for hearing and disposal. 6. The department’s Appeal No. S/130/06, which is against one of the impugned orders, will also be heard on that day.
-
2007 (12) TMI 492 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ini Mills Ltd. as reported in 2001 (131) ELT 370. Further, the provisions of Section 38A were amended with retrospective effect and as such the Revenue is entitled to initiate proceedings under the erstwhile modvat provisions. We find that this issue was not raised before the authorities below and as such has not been examined by them. In respect of the show cause notice issued on 4.5.00, we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for dealing with the above ground. The demands raised by other two show cause notices dt. 18.3.99 and 4.10.99 are, however, confirmed. 6. As regards the personal penalty of identical amount, we agree with the learned advocate that credit was availed after filing declaration and following the due procedure. Regular returns were filed by them. The issue being a bonafide interpretation of provisions of law, thus not inviting penal action against the appellant, penalty is accordingly set aside. 7. Appeal is disposed off in above terms.
-
2007 (12) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e suit of Muthuswamy Gounder fails, then the other suit filed by Dharamrajan being OS 280 of 1982 in respect of the Eastern half portion of the suit property must succeed. The appellate court has rightly granted the declaration in that suit and has also restricted the relief only to the declaration since Dharmrajan and the other defendants had not terminated or revoked the licence of Doraiswamy or his wife Valliammal or daughter Palaniammal. The First Appellate Court had also correctly held that appellant in AS No.10/1995 in OS No.280/1982 had established title of his vendors and further that his vendors has passed a valid title to him with respect to the suit property under Exhibits B-12 and B-13. We also accept the judgment of the appellate court that Dharamrajan and other defendants were not entitled to the injunction prayed for. 17. In the result the appeals succeed with costs. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court is restored.
........
|
