|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 349 Records
-
1998 (10) TMI 515 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e light of the above, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present tax revision case is filed. 2.. Now the question that arose for consideration in this tax revision case is covered by a judgment of this Court in Fertiliser Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1991 83 STC 129 wherein it was held that the subsidy had no relation to any single sale transaction and was determined on the basis of several factors. Therefore, any subsidy received by a manufacturer could not be treated as a part of turnover within the meaning of section 2(s) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, especially when the assessment order itself showed that the transactions were covered by bills as required by the statutory provisions and no amount had been paid on behalf of the purchaser nor any amount collected by the dealer in excess of the price mentioned in the bills. Following the above decision, we dismiss the tax revision case. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the case of McDowell and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1985 59 STC 277 (SC) 1985 UPTC 747 (SC) but has not mentioned that the facts of the present dealer s case were similar to the case of McDowell 1985 59 STC 277 (SC) 1985 UPTC 747 (SC), and the present dealer s buyers were required to pay the excise duty directly or that payment of the excise duty was shown in the bills as an item charged to the customer but it was not included in the turnover. However, since the Tribunal has not discussed the merits of the Deputy Commissioner s order or of the contention of the dealer, it is not necessary for me to elaborate further. 6.. In view of the Tribunal s failure to deal with the merits of the case, its order dismissing the revisionist s appeals, is not legally sustainable. 7.. These revision petitions are, therefore, allowed and setting aside the Tribunal s order, referred to above, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeals afresh, in accordance with law. Petitions allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 512 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wn clauses 5.4 and 5.5(V) only of the scheme and directing reconsideration by BIFR of the petitioner s prayer for exempting it from the operation of Section 41 of the Income-tax Act and finalising such prayer in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and consistently with the observations made hereinabove. This will also satisfy the requirement of CBDT circular No. 683 dated 8.6.94. Rest of the scheme shall remain valid and binding on the parties. 26. The petition is partly allowed. Clauses 5.4 and 5.5(V) of the scheme dated 15.5.95 are struck down and set aside. The BIFR shall consider the petitioner s prayer for exempting the petitioner s unit from the operation of Section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, forming its own opinion thereon, incorporating the same in the scheme in place of the present clauses 5.4 and 5.5(V) and circulate the same in accordance with Section 19(2) of SICA and then sanction the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (10) TMI 511 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... the period allowed for preferring an appeal. We find considerable force in the contention of learned counsel. We have no hesitation in holding that under section 19(1) the competent authority cannot call upon the affected person to surrender or deliver possession of the forfeited property before the prescribed period of 30 days of the service of the order. It is open to the affected person or any other person who may be in possession of the property to surrender or deliver the possession to the competent authority within a period of 30 days of the service of the order under section 19(1). The competent authority cannot take possession before the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the order under section 19(1). The competent authority is directed not to implement the order dated October 14, 1998, until November 16, 1998, i.e., till the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the order on October 17, 1998. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.
-
1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of the Certificate of Registration/Renewal of trademark - Held that:- Appeal allowed. In view of the pendency of these proceedings in the High Court and specially in view of Section 107 of the Act, the Registrar could not legally issue any suo motu notice to the appellant under Section 56(4) of the Act for cancellation of the Certificate of Registration/Renewal already granted. The appeal is consequently allowed and the show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Registrar (respondent No.2) on 26th of Sept. 1997 under Section 56(4) of the Act is hereby quashed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 509 - ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘C
Rejection of books of accounts - Method of accounting - Estimate of profits ... ... ... ... ..... or comparison and in the absence of any justification having been given for this sharp decline in the trading results, we are of the opinion, that the Assessing Officer was more than reasonable in making an addition at the flat rate of 5 on the sales of Rs. 7,75,00,985. It is obvious that these additions raised the GP rate to only 10.99 which is still lower than the GP rate of 11.70 in the immediately preceding year. Since we have already held that the Assessing Officer has rightly pointed out that the books of account of the assessee were not correct and complete and since he has specifically invoked his powers under section 145(2 ) according to the provisions of law, he was justified in making an estimated addition by applying a flat rate of profit at 5 on the disclosed sales which resulted in an addition of Rs. 38,75,050. We, therefore, reverse the order of the Id. CIT(A) in this regard and restore the addition of Rs. 38,75,050 which has been made by the Assessing Officer.
-
1998 (10) TMI 508 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification - Interpretation of ... ... ... ... ..... count on retail price. The question may arise as to which of these two has to be deducted first. If discount is deducted first, it may have particular consequence on the assessable value if excise duty is deducted first, it may have a slightly different consequence on the quantum of assessable value. It is to clarify this position that the explanation has been incorporated to say that element of excise duty should be deducted first and thereafter, the discount should be deducted from the retail price. On the language of the notification read in the light of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, it is clear that excise duty liable to be deducted for determination of assessable value would be not only excise duty under the Central Excises Act, 1944 but also special excise duty under the relevant Finance Act. 7. emsp In the above view, the order of approval based on the price list as well as order confirming the demand are unsustainable and they are set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... that the documents must be dated prior to 1-4-94. The notification at Sl. No. 7 empowers certificates issued by M/s. I.O.C. as valid documents for taking Modvat. In the present case, the word used is ldquo invoice rdquo . In the absence of particular document, it is not easy to determine the factual character but what is clear is that it certifies the payment of duty. The Vice-President sitting singly, in his judgment in the case of Shri Ram Steels v. C.C.E., Raipur reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 71 (Tribunal) had accepted the delivery orders/challan issued by the Bhilai Steel Plant, another PSU as eligible documents. In holding so, he had relied upon an earlier order of the Tribunal. In my opinion in spite of nomenclature such as ldquo certificate rdquo being enumerated in the notification, any other document serving the same purpose, as long as it is issued by a nominated PSU should suffice. On this ground, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal from the Revenue.
-
1998 (10) TMI 506 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation not sustainable. ... ... ... ... ..... roversy. The learned Advocate, however, submits that although the second-hand machine mentioned at S. No. 8 was imported from U.K. but it is of West German origin. Therefore, its spares had to be necessarily imported from West Germany. He, therefore, submits that in view of there being no condition attached in the licence regarding the importation of spares from a particular country and also the fact that the concerned machine, as mentioned above, was of West German origin, the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 3.1 emsp Opposing the contention, learned JDR, Shri R.S. Sangia reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 4.1 emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. In the facts and circumstances narrated above and the submissions made by the learned Advocate, Shri Anshun Tyagi, we agree with his submissions. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with conse shy quential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (10) TMI 505 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification - Appeal - Grounds ... ... ... ... ..... ry on representation to the Central Government was successful in getting a notification from the Central Government under Section 11C. Now the Revenue appears to be changing its stand that what the appellants had manufactured are not printing frames but are flat bed screens and therefore, Notification 11-C would not be applicable. This type of somersault by the Revenue cannot be permitted. The goods were treated by the Revenue in the first instance as printing frames and 11-C Notification was issued accordingly. We, therefore, agree with the lower authority that the Revenue cannot be allowed to change its stand again and again. Hence we reject the appeals of Revenue and confirm the order of the lower appellate authority. 4.1 emsp Before parting with the aforesaid, we may mention that the classification of printing frames would be under Tariff Heading 84.42 as has been held by the Tribunal in the matter of CCE Surat v. Kohinoor Dyeing and Printing Works 1994 (71) E.L.T. 1043 .
-
1998 (10) TMI 503 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Spent Nickel Catalyst is not an excisable commodity ... ... ... ... ..... tral Excise Rules, they could not avail exemption from payment of duty in respect of Spent Nickel catalyst which is a dutiable product under sub-heading 2620.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. 3. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We find that the issue regarding the excisability of the impugned product has been decided in the case of C.C.E. Bombay v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Order No. 835/98-C, dt. 9-9-98 following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Mehta Vegetable Products - 1997 (93) E.L.T. 229 in which it was held that Spent Nickel Catalyst does not arise out of manufacture and is not goods. Following the ratio of the above orders, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
1998 (10) TMI 500 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... of without considering the provisions of the Debts Recovery Act. If the relevant provisions of that Act had been brought to the notice of this court, the order in a different form, perhaps, would have been passed. While disposing of the writ petition of the workman of Rohtas Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court did not take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Debts Recovery Act. Perhaps, it appears to me, that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had not been established by that time and, therefore, there was no occasion for the court to consider the same. In any view, the order of the Supreme Court directing this court to consider the report of the Claims Committee, in my respectful opinion, does not override the express mandatory provisions of the Debts Recovery Act. In this view of the matter, there is hardly any scope or justification for recalling the order dated 22-8-1997. 11. The application filed by Sahu Jain Ltd. (I.A. No. 5077 of 1998) stands rejected accordingly.
-
1998 (10) TMI 497 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Winding up of sick industrial company ... ... ... ... ..... on that the prima facie finding of the Board that taking the stock of the entire position and relevant factors into consideration, it would be just and equitable to wind up the sick unit, cannot be faulted with. The petitioners have not been able to bring anything on record to show that there has been infraction of any rule or established procedure by the Board in coming to such a decision or that the decision/opinion is otherwise illegal calling for interference by this court in writ jurisdiction at this stage. Similarly, we also do not find any reason to interfere with the order in annexure-2 whereby the IPICOL has called upon the petitioners to clear the outstanding dues amounting toRs. 83,47,932 as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners would be free to avail of the protection available under the Act in case any proceeding for recovery of the dues is initiated against it. 11. In the result, the writ application stands dismissed. Mohanty, J. - I agree.
-
1998 (10) TMI 494 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... ondent-company to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent (simple) to the petitioner from the date of the statutory notice till the date of payment of the admitted amount of Rs. 13,64,329. The interest shall be payable proportionately taking into consideration the instalments paid from time to time after adjusting the instalments. The respondent-company is directed to calculate the amount of interest at the rate of 15 per cent (simple) as indicated above and shall pay the same by means of a bank draft in the name of the petitioner-company within 5 weeks from today. 15. In the facts and the circumstances of the present case, I direct the respondent to pay costs to the petitioner which I assess at Rs. 2,000. The amount of costs shall also be paid within 5 weeks. Both the amounts can be paid by means of a bank draft directly to the petitioner or to its learned counsel within the period indicated above. 16. With these observations, this winding-up petition is finally disposed of.
-
1998 (10) TMI 493 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Winding up - Affidavit verifying petition ... ... ... ... ..... of the Companies (Court) Rules, which, as noted above, are mandatory in nature. For the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that the present winding up petition is not in accordance with rule 21 and will, therefore, not be maintainable only on this ground. Before parting with the case it may be necessary to state that learned counsel for the petitioners has also sought to argue that as the respondent- company was not disputing the debt, this Court could waive the technical objection. The Court refrains from making any observation with regard to the merits of the dispute. However, only this much is necessary to be stated that in the counter-affidavit the respondent-company has raised a defence and they were not admitting the debt. Consequently, also the submission made by the petitioners could not be accepted. 12. As a result, this company petition is not maintainable in view of the defect in complying with the provisions of rule 21 and, consequently, is dismissed.
-
1998 (10) TMI 491 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... Pvt. Ltd. 1972 42 Comp Cas 125 (page 132) It is also well-settled that a winding up order will not be made on a creditor s petition if it would not benefit him or the company s creditors generally. The grounds furnished by the creditors opposing the winding up will have an important bearing on the reasonableness of the case. (See P and J Macrae Limited, In re 1961 31 Comp Cas 424 (CA) 1 All ER 302 1 WLR 229 . In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to accept the plea that the defence of the respondent is bona fide notwithstanding the fact that with respect to substantial amount of the petitioner s claim it had issued cheques in token of acceptance of such claim. The insistence to have the entire dispute settled cannot be conclusively said to be in bad faith. The defence set up by the company to oppose the winding up, therefore, cannot be said to be a pretence or bogus to warrant its summary rejection. In these premises I would dismiss this company petition.
-
1998 (10) TMI 482 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Smuggling of contraband silver - Evidence - Statement whether recorded during wrongful confinement.
-
1998 (10) TMI 477 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
State Financial Corporations - Recovery of loan/realisation of security ... ... ... ... ..... talments and if he brings a third party with a higher offer the same may be tested and accepted. It is also laid down that sale by private negotiation should be permitted if the unit is a very large concern with a huge amount of investment for which ordinary buyers may not be available. These conditions having not been adhered to, the sale is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the sale is set aside. The OSFC shall advertise the unit for fresh sale giving wide publicity as required in the case of Mahesh Chandra and also comply with other requirements in that case. Besides, we direct that minimum 15 days notice should be given to the petitioner-bank as well as opposite party No. 5, the company, to enable it to join the auction and if necessary to allow them to fetch their own buyers for participation in the auction. Opportunity to inspect the unit be also given to the petitioner-bank and opposite party No. 5. No costs. Chatterji, J. - I agree.
-
1998 (10) TMI 471 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - Evidence - Preponderance of probability - Penalty - Confiscation - Accounts and records - Duty liability - Demand - Exemption
-
1998 (10) TMI 462 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... es reliance on the ratio of the ruling of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Keltron Power Devices Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin 1987 (28) E.L.T. 93 (T) 1987 (10) ECR 565 (CEGAT SB-B2) . The learned Consultant further submitted that this decision has also been followed subsequently by this Tribunal in a batch of cases covered by Order No. 1921 to 1943/87-B2, dated 2-9-1987 1989 (42) E.L.T. 236 (Tribunal) . 2. emsp Heard Shri Kumar, the learned SDR. 3. emsp On consideration of the entire material before us, we are of the view that the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned Consultant for the appellants and referred to supra is applicable on all fours to the issue that arises for determination in the present appeals before us. Following the ratio of the aforesaid rulings, we hold that the appellants would be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 172/77-Cus. cited supra in respect of the goods in question. In this view of the matter the appeals are allowed.
........
|
