|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 243 Records
-
1986 (2) TMI 272 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Excessive advance deposit without approval of central government ... ... ... ... ..... cution and penal consequences, section 370 cannot be given an interpretation wider than that warranted by the actual words used in that section. Without any provision to that effect, the word loan , as used in section 370, cannot be given a wider interpretation to include deposits. It was contended by Mr. Nilkanth that the petitioner company had itself treated the deposits in question as loans, because these amounts are shown in the balance-sheets under the heading Loans and advances . Since the form of a balance sheet is prescribed under Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956, the amounts in question are required to be shown under the heading Loans and Advances on the assets side. The subheading, however, clearly describes the amounts as deposits with joint stock companies . The balance-sheets, therefore, do not assist the respondents. In the premises, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a ) of the petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (2) TMI 271 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... erties of the company are mortgaged with them. According to him, in case the properties are sold, the petitioner is not likely to get anything and the other creditors would suffer. In support of his contention, he places reliance on Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., 1970 40 Comp. Cas. 259 AIR 1970 All. 452. I have , duly considered the matter but do not find any substance therein. The matter is still at a preliminary stage. These arguments may be raised after the petition has been advertised. At the stage of preliminary hearing these matters are normally not taken into consideration. In Aluminium Corporation of India s case 1970 40 Comp. Cas. 259 AIR 1970 All 452, referred to by Mr. Majithia, the matter was not at a preliminary stage but was being finally decided. Consequently, I order that the petition be advertised on April 4, 1986, in the Indian Express, Chandigarh edition, Punjabi Tribune and the Chandigarh Administration Gazette.
-
1986 (2) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Re-adjudication - Consequential relief ... ... ... ... ..... osed. It cannot be said that as a result of the order passed in the appeal aforesaid an ascertained sum of refund became due to the appellants. The Appellate Collector has adverted to the Judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Allahabad High Court which in turn has expressed its opinion on the Notification at issue. In this case the words ldquo Consequential relief is allowed rdquo postulates further enquiry by the Assistant Collector to accord relief in terms of the observations contained in that order. This the Assistant Collector has proceeded to do, but erred in not issuing any show cause notice to the appellants before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. Under the peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that the Assistant Collector had no ground for consideration of the exact amount to be refunded. 18. Needless to say that the Assistant Collector should afford the appellants an opportunity to explain their case as envisaged in the orders of the Appellate Collector.
-
1986 (2) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT
Evection - Delhi rent control act - parliament intention - Held that: - . Parliamentary intention may be gathered from several sources. First, of course, it must be gathered from the statute itself, next from the preamble to the statute, next from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, thereafter from parliamentary debates, reports of committees and commissions which preceded the legislation and finally from all legitimate and admissible sources from where there may be light. Regard must be had to legislative history too. So we see that the primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment
-
1986 (2) TMI 251 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... d communicate the figures to the appellants within 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 14. emsp In the present case there was no show cause notice under Rule 10. Keeping in mind the extract of the CEGAT order (supra) and also the order of the Kerala High Court in Good Shephered Rubber Company, Palghat v. Inspector of Central Excise, Palghat and Others (1978 E.L.T. J 66) which was cited in the CEGAT judgment, we are of the opinion that the demand of the short-levy without show cause notice is violation of Rule 10. In the circumstances where no show cause notice was issued for demand for duty we follow the earlier CEGAT decision and order that the demand for duty be limited to a period of 6 months from the date of the order. 15. emsp As a result the rate of duty as decided by the authorities below is upheld but the demand for duty is restricted to a period of 6 months from the date of Assistant Collector rsquo s order. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (2) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... d on the Formic Acide purchased by the respondents. The learned Consultant has stated that Formic Acid in question was imported by M/s. May and Baker after paying customs duty including countervailing duty. So, the two cases are identical as the Formic Acid was duty paid. There is no material before us to controvert this argument. We are, therefore, not in a position to distinguish this case from the case of M/s. Anil Chemicals (Private) Ltd. 8. ensp In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the process of concentrating Formic Acid of 65 strength to 85 strength by removing excess water, as adopted by the respondents, did not amount to manufacture of Formic Acid and as such the value of clearances of this product from the factory of the respondent was not to be included in the computation of the value for the purpose of Notification No. 176/77-C.E. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and dismiss the Review Proceedings.
-
1986 (2) TMI 245 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction - Import Trade Control ... ... ... ... ..... y understood that was a stage only when show-cause notices were issued awaiting explanations of the appellants. The respondents cannot prejudge the issue even before they receive the explanations from the appellants. They could not have possibly stated at that stage that the appellants were guilty of misrepresentation. Therefore, that finding cannot operate as res judicata or estoppel. 30. The learned counsel next sought to contend that the executive orders cannot be made to apply retrospectively and that the change of policy of the Government cannot be applied to the applications that have already been disposed of. It is stated by Mr. K. Subrahmanya Reddy that the question of retrospective operation does not arise, as what is being done is to examine the cases of the appellants in order to see whether there has been any misrepresentation by them in obtaining the release orders. 31. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. No Costs. Advocate rsquo s fee Rs. 100/- each.
-
1986 (2) TMI 242 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... and not based on his own judgment, such a grievance cannot be entertained at this stage. The order of the Superintendent had been set aside by the Appellate Collector. It is the order of the Appellate Collector which is under challenge. The Appellate Collector had interpreted the provisions of Rule 56-A(3)(iv)(c). The Government of India had taken a view that that interpretation was erroneous and had issued a show cause notice in exercise of their power under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act. The assessee had been given all opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and was also heard. In the said circumstances, the contention regarding the order of the Superintendent assumes no importance whatsoever. 11. In the result, we allow this appeal and direct making of necessary debit entries in the R.G. 23 - Part II and thereafter to permit the manufacturers (the assessee) to destroy such of the battery containers in respect of which permission was sought for destruction.
-
1986 (2) TMI 239 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ively (these decisions not cited by either of the parties before us), the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar Brothers will prevail over them as it went before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court on merits. 10. ensp The learned Departmental Representative has stated that the case of Kirloskar Brothers stands on a different footing as the exemption was conditional. We are unable to distinguish that case from the case before us on this ground as the exemption Notification relating to molasses was also conditional. Prior to 19.6.1980, all molasses were not exempted from duty. The molasses which was intended for use in the factory in which it was manufactured, was exempted from duty. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Departmental Representative. 11. ensp In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1986 (2) TMI 235 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Show cause notice containing two different matters - Court is competent to set aside the bad part without interfering with the other part.
-
1986 (2) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Spark plug is not an electrical machine ... ... ... ... ..... s or instruments and are liable to be charged under Item 48 when imported separately as spares or as independent units. The Spark Plug would also fall under the same item. It was vehemently urged for the petitioners that the spark plugs are not included in the list set out under Item 48 and, therefore, it should be concluded that spark plug is a machinery part but not included in Item 48. It is not possible to accede to this submission. The mere fact that spark plugs are not specifically included in the list set out at Item 48 would not automatically make them a machinery part. In my judgment, the list set out in Item 48 is illustrative in nature and not exhaustive and the spark plug is liable to be charged under Item 48. In my judgment, the grievance of the petitioner is without any substance and the petitioners are not entitled to the relief. 5. emsp Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged, but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (2) TMI 233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import - Imprest licence ... ... ... ... ..... In spite of decision of the Criminal Court, the respondent No. 2 had issued show cause notice which is not sustainable. In my judgment, the submission of Shri Desai is correct and deserves acceptance. The facts set out hereinabove unmistakably establish that respondent No. 2 had proceeded to issue show cause notice without any application of mind. In case, the licence granted to the petitioners did not permit import of beef tallow as it was issued subsequent to June 5, 1981 and beef tallow was not imported on the strength of the said licence, it is difficult to appreciate how it could be even suggested that the petitioners have abetted import of beef tallow. In my judgment, the show cause notice is wholly misconceived and deserves to be quashed. 5. emsp Accordingly, petition succeeds and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Shri Bulchandani applies for stay of operation of the order. Stay refused.
-
1986 (2) TMI 223 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Khandsari - Refund of duty paid on Khandsari under compounded levy scheme ... ... ... ... ..... s part to reject the appellants rsquo contention by presuming that the RG-21 account was maintained subsequently and that it might not represent the correct position. The appellants had sent a notice of production of the Khandsari sugar vide their letter dated 27-12-1975. They have maintained the prescribed records and therefore they are eligible for the benefit due to them. Since the centrifugal started working only from 8-1-1976 no duty is payable by the appellants for the week 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976. In view of this finding, the appellants are entitled to the refund of duty amounting to Rs. 5900/-, for this period. Accordingly, I set aside the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) to this extent and direct that partial relief be allowed by way of refund of the duty of Rs. 5900/-(Rupees five thousand nine hundred) only under AR.8 No. 8/75 dated 31-12-1975 for the week 1-1-1976 to 7-1-1976. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
-
1986 (2) TMI 222 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference to the High Court not maintainable if point of law already settled by the Supreme Court
-
1986 (2) TMI 221 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import - Smuggling of goods ... ... ... ... ..... st his job. From the evidence the profit he made was only about Rs. 27,000/- or so. Taking all aspects, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 32,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). 41. Subject to the above modification in the amount of penalty, these appeals fail and the same are rejected. 42. emsp Before parting with these appeals, it is necessary to observe that on behalf of appellant, Shri Chadha it was contended that the fixed deposit receipt was seized by the Customs authorities and the same was not returned to him. The Addl. Collector did not record any finding that the amount covered by fixed deposit represented the sale proceeds of the smuggled goods. As a matter of fact he has released Rs. 4,000/-Indian currency seized from the appellant Chadha. The Board has observed that fixed deposit receipt had not been confiscated. We, therefore, direct the Customs authorities to return the Fixed Deposit Receipt since the same had been seized from the appellant Chadha.
-
1986 (2) TMI 220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interrogation and Investigation ... ... ... ... ..... ill be permitted to place his objections, if any, in writing before the Investigating Officer. That, to my mind, should adequately protect the interest of the Accused or the suspect. 27. emsp For the sake of clarification, it needs to be stated that it is not in every case of interrogation by Enforcement Officers that an Advocate can claim to remain present. There is no desire to cultivate ldquo a breed of Police Station lawyers rdquo , if one may borrow the expression of Krishna Iyer J. It is only in cases where the Accused or the suspect makes a written Application to the Enforcement Officer to permit his Advocate rsquo s presence during interrogation, that the Accused or the suspect must be permitted to do so. 28. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The Order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 14-1-1986 is set aside. The Petitioner will be permitted to have his Advocate present during his interrogation by the Enforcement Officers on conditions mentioned hereinabove.
-
1986 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Drawback (Customs) - Inadmissible unless goods landed at port of destination or reimported ... ... ... ... ..... resumed to have been lost or misplaced. I agree with my brother Shri Hegde that in the circumstances of the case it has to be held that the goods had been duly taken out of India to a place outside India, and the export is thus, complete. There is no legal requirement that before becoming entitled to receive drawback, the Indian exporter must prove off-loading of the goods at a foreign port nor, I was told by the learned representative of the department, there was ever any practice to ask the Indian Exporter to do so. 19. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. Final Order 20. The point of difference in this appeal was referred by the President in terms of Section 129-C(5) to the third Member and that member has since recorded his findings. As per Section 129-C(5) the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the majority opinion. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct that the appellants be granted consequential relief.
-
1986 (2) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... n with a third party (Mukund)? Diamonds are a precious commodity. It is curious that Rajesh did not weigh them while giving them to the appellant nor did the appellant weigh them while giving them to Mukund. The conduct of the appellant throughout has been raising more questions rather than answering any. I am satisfied that he was the real owner of the diamonds and he had the knowledge as to the illicit source which they came and the fact that they were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty imposed on the appellant is legally tenable and is justified. The penalty is not excessive. I uphold the penalty and reject the appeal. Final Order 53. The point of difference in this appeal was referred by the President in terms of Section 129-C(5) to the Third Member and that Member has since recorded his findings. As per Section 129-C(5), the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the majority opinion. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1986 (2) TMI 217 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Smuggling of Currency out of India ... ... ... ... ..... rency. These circumstances attracted the second part of Section 113 (d) of lsquo brought within the limits of any customs area for the purpose of being exported rsquo , contrary to any prohibition in force. The section equates this also to attempted export. The appellant had the certain knowledge that he was a part of the clandestine export operation, and for which he was to get a handsome commission. In the circumstances, I agree with my learned brother, Shri Dilipsinhji. 26. I uphold the penalty imposed on the appellant and reject the appeal. 27. Final Order The point of difference in this appeal was referred by the President in terms of Section 129-C(5) to the third Member and that Member has since recorded his findings. 28. emsp As per Section 129-C(5), the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the majority opinion. Accordingly, we find that the order of the Asstt. Collector and the Appellate Collector are quite legal and fair. We confirm the same and reject the apeal.
-
1986 (2) TMI 216 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... iples of natural justice as well as the relevant rule 56A(5) specifically required that a demand or direction to withdraw the credit already given should be preceded by a show cause notice. No such notice was issued by the Asstt. Collector. His order dated 22-3-1977 has, therefore, to be held as arbitrary and null and void. I agree with brother Shri Hegde, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal. 31. emsp Final Order The points of difference in this appeal were referred by the President in terms of Section 129-C(5) of the Customs Act read with Section 35D of Central Excises Act to the third Member and that Member has since recorded his findings. 32. emsp As per the provisions of these Sections, the appeal has to be disposed of in terms of the majority opinion. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-3-1977 passed by the Asstt. Collector as well as the order passed by the Appellate Collector and grant consequential relief to the appellants.
........
|
