|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 208 Records
-
1984 (9) TMI 286 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... goods for carrying out certain manufacturing processes. It empowers the Collector of Central Excise to accord his permission to the manufacture subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Collector. Rule 56B is clearly discretionary and cannot be availed of as a matter of right. At the same time, the Collector of Central Excise has to proceed in accordance with the well recognised norms of natural justice and afford adequate opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee before refusing to accord his permission as provided under the Rules. We therefore, consider that it would be more appropriate if the matter is considered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise de novo in accordance with law and after giving full opportunity to the respondents to present their case. We set aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and remand the case to him for de novo consideration in the light of the observations made by us.
-
1984 (9) TMI 285 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... show cause notice rule 173Q(1)(a) and (d) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been mentioned and in the order the same has been mentioned as rule 173Q(1)(c) and(d) ibid. In reply to my query the learned S.D.R. has stated that there appears to be some typographical error. However, he has conceded that there is no corrigendum to this effect. In view of my above observations, I quash the order passed by the learned Additional Collector as to the confiscation of the goods and levy of fine of ₹ 20,000/- in lieu of confiscation. I also order quashing of the penalty of ₹ 500/-. In the result the appeal is accepted. The Revenue is directed to refund the amount of fine in lieu of confiscation and the penalty amounting to ₹ 500/- within three months from the date of this order after making verification regarding payment of the same. I also warn the appellant to be careful in future so that there should not be any repetition of the default as stated above in future.
-
1984 (9) TMI 284 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... control under Exemption Notification no licence was necessary. We do not consider this circumstance against the party as the same was not the subject-matter of the show cause notice or in the order before the lower authorities. The appellants and the other two firms were registered as firms long before Tariff Item 68 came on the statute book and the Notification No. 176/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977 was promulgated. The parties have separate income-tax registration, sales-tax registration, registration as small scale units, separate electricity meters. The various circumstances relied on by the Department for fastening the appellants with liability have been discussed above. It would be seen that while some of the circumstances are innocuous, the remaining circumstances are either not proved or are innconclusive. We therefore find that the Department has failed to bring home the allegations against the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1984 (9) TMI 283 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... uty on those parts and then proceed to collect duty under Item 68, we can take it that duty under Item 68 was the appropriate rate in the eyes of the central excise. There is, therefore, no case for charging duty under Item 68 again. 5. It is not disputed that the sales represent parts of complete cells. The appellants, of course, say that they do not sell complete cells as they are dispatched in unassembled conditions. But such parts of complete cells will have to be classed as complete cells in knocked down conditions. A battery cell is not assessable under Item 68. There has been no demand or proceedings to recover duty on the complete unassembled battery cell under Item 31 which covers electric batteries and parts thereof. The parts on which duty is now demanded are not required to pay duty a second time in their individual character as they have retained such original character. For all these reasons, the demand cannot be allowed to take effect and so is set aside.
-
1984 (9) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lt with in the case which is the subject-matter of Appeal No. 377/79A, and the Supreme Court repelled the contention of the Revenue. 41. We, therefore agree with the contention of the appellants, which also finds support in various judicial decisions and orders of the Government of India, that the goods were not liable to further duty on repacking. 42. The fourth issue which we have posed, namely whether the further duty would be leviable on the full value of the goods or on the difference in value, doss not survive, in the light of our decision on the preceding issue. 43. In the result, we uphold the contention of the appellants that the goods in question were assessable to duty at the time of removal from the factory of Balmer Lawrie and at the prices fixed by the Government of India for such goods (in the packing in which they were contained at the time of such removal). We accordingly allow these two appeals and direct that consequential relief be granted.
-
1984 (9) TMI 281 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court Judgment was followed by the West Regional Bench of CEGAT Bombay in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1983 ECR 1865D and I was a party to the said judgment. 5. In view of the above discussions and the decisions of the various Courts discussed above I uphold the findings of the learned Collector (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. The respondent has also filed a Cross Objection. No notice for hearing of the Cross Objection has been issued by the Registry. I had asked both the parties whether they have got any objection as to the hearing of the Cross Objection. Both the parties have stated that they have got no objection. Accordingly, the Cross Objection is also disposed of. No fresh issue has been raised in the Cross Objection. The Cross Objection is in support of the order passed by the learned Collector (Appeals). Since no fresh issue has been raised the Cross Objection is dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 280 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... and in the case of Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1981 Vol. No. E.L.T. 918. Since the learned Senior Departmental Representative has accepted the genuineness of the amended Outturn Report of the Calcutta Port Trust dated 13th September, 1979,1 feel that his argument for the remand of the case to the lower authorities is not tenable. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted. The revenue is directed to refund the amount of penalty at ₹ 16,931 (Rupees sixteen thousand nine hundred thirty-one only) paid by the appellant after necessary verification as to the payment within three months from the date of this order. 6. In the instant case, the genuineness of the fresh evidence filed before this court has not been doubted by the respondent and as such the same is accepted. I would like to make it clear that this evidence has been accepted in the peculiar circumstances stated above. This case will not be a precedent for other cases.
-
1984 (9) TMI 279 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ile copies of the Chemical Examiner’s report. As per invoice the purity of the imported item viz., Dicofol is 78% and as per definition filed by the appellant it is 80%. So in any case the imported item cannot be accepted in the Commercially Pure Form. The value of the 16 drums Dicofol Technical is ₹ 1,02,645.41 and the learned Collector had imposed a fine of ₹ 10,300.00 which is just 10%. The argument of the learned Consultant that the demurrage to the tune of ₹ 45,013.83 was paid by the appellant does not help him. The learned S.D.R’s. argument that the leniency may be considered is also not tenable. I feel that the Revenue authorities while choosing the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation is very lenient and reasonable. Accordingly, I hold that the importation is not covered by the import licence and is in contravention of the Import Trade Control Policy. I uphold the findings of the lower authorities. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 278 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... fact that the goods are not used in the textile industry but in the laboratory would not alter this position. 12. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, we hold that the subject goods are correctly classifiable under Item No. 14D CET and not under Item 68. 13. The Appellate Collector’s order ignoring the fact that one of the refund claims was hit by the limitation in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act is not correct and it is contrary to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1633 of 1984 which upheld the decision of this Tribunal in Miles India Ltd., Baroda v. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1983 Vol. No. E.L.T. 1026 (CEGAT) to the effect that quasi-judicial authorities functioning under the Customs Act are not competent to overlook or ignore the said limitation. 14. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of the Appellate Collector are set aside and the orders of the Assistant Collector are restored.
-
1984 (9) TMI 277 - CEGAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment of necessary intendment. Their Lordships can have no doubt that provisions which, if applied retrospectively would deprive of their existing finality orders which, when the statute came into force, were final, are provisions which touch existing rights.” Extract taken from Kanga and Palkhivala’s THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INCOME TAX, Seventh Edition, Vol. 1, page 7, (not cited by the parties). We would also like to refer the judgment in the case of Amin Chand Pyaralal v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1984 (16) E.L.T. 126 wherein the larger bench of the Tribunal had gone in great length and had held that pre-deposit of penalty is attracted only in those cases where the appeal is filed on or after operated date viz.. the llth day of October 1982. Accordingly, we hold that there is no requirement of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 129E in the instant case.
-
1984 (9) TMI 276 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... we have no hesitation in holding that the Collector of Central Excise will have no locus standi to prefer the appeals. The ruling cited in 1978 E.L.T. 523 has no application to the present facts because the scheme regarding the preferring of appeals was totally different at that time. Further that was a case when the Government sought to file an application in revision to set aside the decision passed in a criminal trial. In the course of the observations, the High Court has pointed out that the Department had not challenged an earlier finding of the Customs Department. So we do not agree that the decision would apply to the facts of the present case. The ruling reported in 1984 ECR 990 has considered the effect of the present provisions and we are in respectful agreement with it. We therefore, hold that the present appeal is not maintainable and the preliminary objection raised regarding the maintainability is upheld. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.
-
1984 (9) TMI 275 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l have to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules as in force from time to time. The period prescribed for such collection, either in the Act or in the rules, continues to operate and the provisions of Sections 11A and 11B continue to apply to such recoveries and levies also. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court. To hold otherwise would also invite a challenge to the retrospective amendment itself. It would amount to saying that as a result of the retrospective amendment, the assessees can be called upon to pay taxes retrospectively as from 1975. It would make the provision open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Such an interpretation is not warranted. The amendment does not affect the application of other provisions of the Act. Hence the amendment does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In the premises the petition is dismissed with costs and the rule is discharged.
-
1984 (9) TMI 274 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... itiated as rightly pointed out by the Department’s Representative on the authority of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. J.K. Steel Ltd. The question whether rule 10 applied in this case or rule 10A applied is only of academic interest because even under rule 10 the demand was within time. 11. The question of calculations of the demand was briefly mentioned before us. The appellants stated that after reconsidering the matter, as ordered by the Appellate Collector, the Asstt. Collector had found the original calculations as correct. The appellants did not deal with the matter any further nor pointed out the mistake, if any, in this second order of the Assistant Collector. The order itself was also not placed before us. We are, therefore, not in a position to go into this matter any further. 12. In the light of our above discussion, we hold that there is no substance in any of the arguments of the appellants and, accordingly, we reject their appeal.
-
1984 (9) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the expression 'wages', defined by s.2(22) of the Employees State Insurance Act, includes 'House Rent Allowance', 'Night Shift Allowance, paid to those employees who are obliged to work in the night shift and the 'Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance' and 'Incentive Allowance' paid by an employer to his employees?
Held that:- On a proper interpretation of the term 'wages' the legislative intent is made manifestly clear that the term 'wages' as used in the Act will include House Rent Allowance Night Shift Allowance, Heat, Gas and Dust Allowance and Incentive Allowance. The definition, on its plain reading is clear and unambiguous. Even if any ambiguity could have been suggested, the expression must be given a liberal interpretation beneficial to the interests of the employees for whose benefit the Employees State Insurance Act has been passed. Appeal dismissed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the services of Shri R.K. Kindra were terminated illegally and unjustifiably ?
Whether the enquiry proceedings were initiated by the principles of natural justice and equity ?
To what relief if any, is the worker entitled ?
Held that:- If there is absolutely no evidence in support or the only allegation of misconduct namely negligence in not keeping one's private cheque book in safe custody, the conclusion is not only not a plausible one but it is wholly perverse and we are in complete agreement with findings recorded Mr. G.C. Jain that the findings of enquiry officer were perverse and the enquiry was wholly vitiated. Where the order of dismissal is sought to be sustained on a finding in the domestic enquiry which is shown to be perverse and the enquiry is vitiated as suffering from non- application of mind the only course open to us is to set it aside and consequently relief of reinstatement must be granted and nothing was pointed to us why we should not grant the same.
There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to full back-wages and all consequential benefits.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award of the arbitrator Shri Kakkar is set aside and the appellant is re- instated in service with full back-wages and consequential benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully thrown out from service, and the costs of this appeal quantified at ₹ 3,000. The back-wages payable to the appellant and the costs awarded herein shall be paid to him within 2 months from today. The appellant shall be physically reinstated in service within a week from today. The appellant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits f his continuous service.
-
1984 (9) TMI 271 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sclose that the ASTO assessed yearwise separately so that on the basis of that, it could be found out as to what was the taxable turnover in the year preceding the year of assessment. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, it is not necessary also to go into the question of limitation so far as the revising authority is concerned. In this view of the matter, therefore, the orders passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and the Deputy Commissioner could not be maintained. 7.. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The order of assessment passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision are hereby quashed and it is directed that the papers be sent to the Sales Tax Officer, Ujjain, who will consider the matter afresh and proceed to make assessment in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 270 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bond, copy annexure R-1. Thus, notice of recovery for Rs. 14,137.30 and Rs. 658.80 (annexure B-1) for the assessment year 1967-68 is valid only to the extent of Rs. 5,000. The other notice relates to the attachment of property for recovery of Rs. 934. It is not clear as to for which assessment year that amount is being sought to be recovered. In any case the liability of the surety, petitioner herein, being up to Rs. 5,000 as such the further sum of Rs. 936.50, as shown in annexure A-1 (English translation annexure A) cannot be recovered from him. That notice is liable to be quashed, and it is hereby quashed. The result is that the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. I grant one month s time to the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000. In the event of the petitioner not paying this amount within the period of one month, the sales tax authorities will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Writ petition partly allowed.
-
1984 (9) TMI 269 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tax. Under section 43(5) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, a stay of the collection can be ordered to some extent as otherwise the appeal cannot be heard. The discretion with the appellate authority is either to insist on the entire sales tax amount being paid as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal, or to grant partial stay either on payment of part of the tax or furnishing security or on other terms as set out in the section. An unconditional stay is not visualised by section 43(5). In the circumstances of this case, because the petitioner has not collected any tax, we think that the furnishing of a security should be sufficient, and the appeal should be heard on the furnishing of that security. We would, therefore, direct the appeal to be heard on merits but after the appeal is disposed of the security will be available for realisation of the tax amount. Of course, the tax amount can also be realised from the petitioner. This order disposes of the petition.
-
1984 (9) TMI 268 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y applicable to the instant case. It is amply clear from the decision of the Supreme Court that it is necessary to obtain witnesses to identify unless an affidavit was shown by the process-server that he knew residence or office, place of business or residence. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in holding that it was not necessary for the process-server to obtain any witness on the report. I, therefore, hold that the substituted service in the absence of obtaining witnesses was invalid. There is nothing on record to show that the case of the assessee that it came to know about the order only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, is false. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) could not be said to be barred by limitation. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the case to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who will dispose of the appeal on merits. The revision is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (9) TMI 267 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt where this Court interfered with orders passed by the assessing authority on the ground of inordinate delay. In Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. P.S.B. Paul Pandian 1981 128 ITR 809 1981 KLT 66 it was an order passed in a suo motu revision under section 34 of the Agricultural Incometax Act, 1950, that was set aside on the ground that there was great delay in invoking section 34. As the case in hand is one of an assessment after remand it goes without saying that the above decision is distinguished on the facts. In Krishna Bhatta v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer (1981) 23 CTR (Ker) 142 where Pandian s case 1981 128 ITR 809 was followed, it was an order levying penalty after a period of 16 years that was set aside. On the facts, this decision is also distinguishable. 6.. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the judgment in O.P. No. 4389 of 1981 (reported as P.K. Sankaran v. Sales Tax Officer 1983 54 STC 312) is set aside. No costs.
........
|
