|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 202 Records
-
1988 (1) TMI 293 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ion, referred to above, refers to powers to stay proceedings depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the facts of that case are also distinguishable. Similarly, the decision reported in 1981 JLJ Note 24 which had placed reliance on the decision in M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 SC 397, also arose out of a civil suit and criminal proceedings arising out of the incident. Therefore, that authority also does not help the respondent-company. In such a situation, as the relief sought in this petition as also in the criminal complaint are quite distinct and separate and the criminal case having been filed only against Shri Jawaharlal Daga in his individual capacity, I am of the opinion that further proceedings in the present winding-up petition cannot be stayed on that ground. In the result, both these applications are dismissed. The respondent-company is, therefore, directed to file reply to the show-cause notice on or before February 12, 1988.
-
1988 (1) TMI 278 - SUPREME COURT
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property - Held that:- Grant the respondents time till June 30, 1988, to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this court within four weeks from today. If there is failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said undertaking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases against them, i.e. , Complaint Case No. 1053 of 1983 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, and Complaint Case No. 2788 of 1984 in the Court of the Special Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, shall continue.
-
1988 (1) TMI 277 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Appointment of directors and proportion of those who are to retire by rotation, Ascertainment of directors retiring by rotation and filling up vacancies
-
1988 (1) TMI 276 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Company - Membership of ... ... ... ... ..... ua the club and has no independent rights except those given to him by the statutes and bye-laws of the club and he must speak through the club only. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order affects his personal interest in the club nor is the right of the petitioner as a member of the club affected. Only the authority of the committee of management to appoint the secretary of the club is affected inasmuch as such an appointment has to take place with the prior approval of the State Government. The club is not aggrieved by the impugned order. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is entitled to maintain this writ petition. Since the petitoner has no locus standi to maintain this petition, the other contentions raised in the writ petition need not be gone into and the same are left open. For the reasons stated above, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 275 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Company - Membership of, Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... ce in this case that the petitioner has obtained shares of Messrs. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd, and if they have not obtained shares of Messrs. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd., they cannot have any claim at all. To meet this argument, counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 155 of the Companies Act has got a wider scope and width and that this court can make an investigation as regards the question whether the petitioner and the second respondent have obtained shares of Messrs. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd. I feel that from the papers produced, though it is not conclusive, the possibility to a near certainty is that they have got an entitlement to hold shares in Messrs. Harrisons and Crosfield (UK) Ltd. As I said earlier, that alone is not sufficient for me to act under section 155 of the Companies Act and rectify the share register. I do not want to say anything more on this aspect of the case. The petition deserves to be dismissed and I do so. No costs.
-
1988 (1) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... n 1995 (79) E.L.T. 322, we observe, is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, as is evident from para 3 of the said judgment, there were other evidences available to rebutt the price of the appellants therein namely Pan Asia Enterprises. In the present case, there is no other evidence whatsoever. Similarly, the reliance placed by ld. SDR on Manju Verma case is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, the quotation was produced by the appellants, Manju Verma in support of the price declared by her for import of the car. It is in those circumstances that quotation was relied upon which is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. Advocate has placed a correct reliance on Laxmi Colour Lab as also on Krison Electronics Systys Ltd. 8. emsp Consequently, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants after we set aside the impugned order.
-
1988 (1) TMI 249 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... es and the case law cited and relied upon by the appellants, we note that insofar as electric wires and cables (instrument cables) are concerned, they are fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Novo Udyog Limited. We also note that this decision of the Tribunal has further been followed in some other decisions of the Tribunal. We, therefore, do not see any reason to disagree with this decision of the Tribunal in the case of Novo Udyog Limited and hold that electric wires and cables are capital goods under Rule 57Q. 9. emsp Hydrant Valves are parts of the machines for regulating the flow of the liquid used for the manufacture of rubber and other products. They are, thus, parts of the machine and are covered by the explanation under Rule 57Q. 10. emsp Having regard to above findings, we hold that Modvat credit will be admissible to the appellants on the above two items. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with law.
-
1988 (1) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... se of passing this ad interim order to take up this petition filed with reference to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. emsp We also note that there is no dispute that the goods in question had been warehoused. Therefore, prima facie, warehousing provisions and the relevant provisions of Section 15 would come into play. Since it is Section 15 which prescribes the rate of duty and undisputably, it is a case relating to date for determination of rate of duty, the relevant provision is Section 15(b) which relates to goods cleared from a warehouse and prescribes the appropriate date as the date on which the goods have been actually removed from the warehouse and apparently, it is this sub-clause which is attracted ex facie. 10. emsp Therefore, in view of the reasons already recorded by my learned Colleague, the prayer for waiver of pre-deposit is rejected. However, the appellants are given time to deposit the duty within eight weeks, as already announced in the open Court.
-
1988 (1) TMI 247 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... he respondent is truly that of a seat/saddle in the instant case. The product as it emerges is a seat or saddle which can be straightaway fitted to a scooter/motor-cycle. It does not require further processing as in the case of latex foam sponge seats in the case of Apex Rubber Ltd. mentioned supra. Taking the overall view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the scope of the Tariff Entry 15A(4), it is clear that the products saddles/seats manufactured in single shot injection moulding process by the assessee is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as it stood before 28-2-1986. (Although the impugned order had mentioned about the classification of other motor parts, it has been a common ground that the question to be decided here is only in respect of saddles/seats and not in respect of other parts which were not manufactured and cleared by the assessee during the relevant period). 6. Accordingly, in view of our discussion and finding above, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 246 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rubber blankets ‘imported for use in the printing industry’ ... ... ... ... ..... ial understanding of the scope of the textile industry and in this view of the matter the printing of textiles can be considered as a part of textile industry. In the chapter on printing in Encyclopaedia Britannica, the scope of printing covered is only in the context of printing presses which employ the process generally employed for the printing of paper. In the above view of the matter, we hold that Collector (Appeals) was in error m holding that the printing industry covers within its ambit textile printing also. Since the imported rubber blankets were meant for use in-the textile printing these cannot be taken to be covered by Notification No. 169/77-Cus. No intention can be read into the notification as pleaded by the respondents and it is now Well settled mat me notification has to be construed strictly based on the words used in it. We therefore set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of the Assistant Collector. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 245 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printing of imported rubber blankets ... ... ... ... ..... understanding of the scope of the textile industry and in this view of the matter the printing of textiles can be considered as a part of textile Industry. In the chapter on Printing in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the scope of printing covered is only in the context of printing presses which employ the process generally employed for the printing of paper. In the above view of the matter, we hold that Collector (Appeals) was in error in holding that the Printing Industry covers within its ambit textile printing also. Since the imported rubber blankets were meant for use in the textile printing these cannot be taken to be covered by Notification No. 169/77-Cus. No intention can be read into the notification as pleaded by the respondents and it is now well settled that the notification has to be construed strictly based on the words used in it. We therefore set aside the order of the Collector (Appeals) and restore the order of Assistant Collector. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 244 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit - M.G. Poster paper and Glassien Paper ... ... ... ... ..... e any reason. On the prima facie reading of Rule 57-A it is clear that all types of packaging materials are included within the scope of terms lsquo inputs rsquo as given in clause (b) of the explanation to Rule 57-A except those mentioned in clauses (ii) and (iii) in the exclusion clause of the said explanation. Since no reasons have been given by the Addl. Collector of Central Excise as to why the packaging material received by the appellants could not be treated as inputs, the appeal is allowed by way of remand subject to the verification that the appellants rsquo packing material does not fall within the category of packing material cited in clauses (ii) and (iii) of the exclusion clause of the said rule. In case the appellants rsquo packing material is not covered by (ii) and (iii) of the aforesaid exclusion clause the appellants should be extended the benefit of Modvat credit with consequential relief, if any. 4. Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court.
-
1988 (1) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... on could be held enforceable only with effect from the date of the issue of the first show cause notice. In the present case, we are left with the Assistant Collector rsquo s peremptory order dated 3-12-1975 revising the classification without, as already noted, any disclosed fresh basis for doing so and the Superintendent rsquo s demand for duty dated 1-3-1976 which, in the light of the subsequent adjudication proceedings, could perhaps be treated as a notice to the appellants. Both these documents and the adjudication proceedings consequent thereto have resulted in a demand for duty for the period from 23-7-1975 to 28-12-1975. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), we hold that the demand cannot be enforced for the period prior to the date of the notice. 8. In the result, while we allow the appeal and set aside both the demands, we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of classification of MW I wire.
-
1988 (1) TMI 240 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... position of penalty on these persons. Accordingly I set aside the penalties on those two persons also. 16. In the result while maintaining the order of confiscation of 20.956 kgs of silver coins and rods seized from Shri Kadarbhai I reduce the fine from Rs. 20.000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. Smt. Magniben is given an option to redeem the silver on payment of fine of Rs. 5.000/-. She shall exercise this option within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The confiscation if silver weighing 4.353 kgs valued at Rs 10,405/- is hereby set aside. The silver shall be returned to M/s. Ambica Jewellers. The confiscation of the bicycle is hereby set aside. Consequently the fine levied in lieu of confiscation of the bicycle also set aside. The bicycle be released to Shri Kadarbhai if not released already. Fine, if any paid, by him, shall be refunded to him. The penalties imposed on all the appellants are hereby set aside. Penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to them.
-
1988 (1) TMI 239 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Gold - Amnesty Scheme known as Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... has not made a claim for the same at any time till now and even in the appeal before us he has not claimed it. Therefore, we reject the claim of appellant Jose. Tough there is a disclaimer by appellant Kuruvila of the primary gold before us, under the impugned order redemption of the same has been permitted by him. There is no cross objection by the Department against that part of the order. In such a situation we record the disclaimer of Kuruvila and leave the issue as such. 11. We note that the purity of the gold and ornaments is only 20 to 21 ct. and keeping this in mind and also the value of the same at Rs. 3,93,458.25 we reduce the quantum of fine from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 75,000 (Rs. Seventy five thousand). We reduce the penalty on appellant Kuruvila from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty-five thousand) and reduce the penalty on appellant Jose from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand). 12. Except for the above modifications, the appeals are otherwise dismissed.
-
1988 (1) TMI 236 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... thout any further declaration in 1987, does not have much force. This is because as I have already seen, to be eligible for MODVAT the materials should be specified as input in the Notification under Rule 57A and this was not the case in respect of Lactose in 1986. Therefore in 1986 the question of filing a declaration under Rule 57G in respect of such material would not arise at all. When in 1987 the goods falling under Chapter XVII were covered by amendment Notification No. 83/87, it was for the first time that these became inputs specified in the Notification, and as such, declaration under Rule 57G will logically follow. Such declaration was given only in June 87, and therefore prior to that date, the appellants in terms of Rule 57G were clearly not eligible for taking MODVAT credit on the inputs in terms of Rule 57G. In such a view of the matter, there is no need to interfere with the order of the lower authority which is correct in law. The appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1988 (1) TMI 234 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Jurisdiction for disallowance of MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... n six months, if proper reasons are given for the delay in filing the appeal. Hence it is obligatory on the part of the Collector (Appeals) to ascertain the reasons before exercising his discretion to reject the appeal as time-barred. This is not a case where the appeals have been received beyond the statutory period of six months, where he has no powers to condone the delay. Even in the letter addressed by the office of the Collector (Appeals) no mention is made about the delayed receipt of the appeals for considering it as a notice calling for the explanation for the delay. 7. emsp In view of this, the impugned orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) are bad in law, which are required to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Collector (Appeals) and remand the matter for considering the appeals on merits. 8. emsp Since we have disposed of the appeals themselves, the stay applications do not survive for consideration. The same are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (1) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cotton fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... -item 1(2) of Item 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, when subjected to the finishing process of stentering were exempted from whole of central excise duty leviable thereon. In paragraph-18 of the impugned order, the Collector has observed that the appellants herein started paying duty from 2-11-1976 because they were processing superfine fabrics falling under ldquo Tariff Item 19I(2) others rdquo and were using power/steam for stentering these fabrics. The above findings of the Collector show that the appellants undertook the process of stentering cotton fabrics falling under Item 19I(2) of the Central Excise Tariff. Their product was, therefore, eligible for exemption granted under Notification No. 80/76-C.E. In other words. Central Excise duty was not payable by them on the said processed fabrics in terms of the above notification w.e.f. 16-3-1976. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Collector and allow this appeal.
-
1988 (1) TMI 230 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Glass fabrics ... ... ... ... ..... al Excise Notification No. 87/76, dated 16-3-1976 exempts inter alia glass fabrics from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon. The respondent rsquo s contention, as urged before us, is that the notification applies even to expoxy coated glass fabrics whereas the Sr. D.R. rsquo s contention is to the contrary. As the notification reads, the exemption is for glass fabrics. The question whether it would apply to the vacuum impregnated glass fabric, reinforced with expoxy, in our opinion, need not be gone into for the present dispute. This is because the goods herein are not mere fabrics but tubes made out of such fabrics to be used as finished components of circuit-breakers. In our opinion, the notification does not apply to the goods made out of glass fabrics. We may note here that there is no dispute before us that the subject tubes fell under Item No. 22F CET. 4. ensp In the above view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders-in-appeal set aside.
-
1988 (1) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Class of buyer ... ... ... ... ..... has reiterated the grounds of the appellant-Collector. 4. ensp We do not find merit in the appeal of the appellant-Collector. Firstly, this point had already been decided by the lower appellate authority as early as October 1978 and the scope of remand by the said authority to the original adjudicating authority was limited in its scope i.e. of verifying the facts on two aspects as mentioned above. The readjudicating authority could not go beyond the terms of the directions of remand of the superior appellate authority. Secondly, even on merits the word ldquo directly rdquo used in the notification would also cover the retail chemist shops approved by the ESIS authorities. Supply of P or P medicines to such approved shops is to be considered as good as supply to the Government department because such shops are the outlets of medicines for such Government department. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 5. ensp Operative part of the order already announced in the open Court.
........
|
