|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 285 Records
-
1992 (3) TMI 280 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... r of amalgamation. (3)The present order of amalgamation will not absolve any of the companies or its directors from the liability for breach of any law or control order which might have been committed before the order of amalgamation. This amalgamation order is being passed strictly with a view that the three companies which have as its shareholders members of closely knit families have desired to form one company to launch their activities in the new field of organic fertilisers and as stated by learned counsel for the companies the amalgamation scheme is not a device to avoid any tax payment or to overcome any illegal act committed on behalf of the company. As such the aforesaid conditions imposed in the amalgamation order will sufficiently take care of the doubts expressed by the official liquidator on the basis of the inspection of the record and the accounts of the company. With the aforesaid conditions the amalgamation scheme is approved on this 31st Day of March, 1992.
-
1992 (3) TMI 279 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order, Powers of liquidator, Exercise and control of liquidator’s powers
-
1992 (3) TMI 278 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Winding up - Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... in favour of the official liquidator for the reasons stated in the report of the official liquidator, dated November 10, 1991. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the official liquidator has made out a case for transfer of the pending suit in Suit No. 1291 of 1980 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, instituted by the respondent-Corporation against Radhakrishna Mills Ltd. (in liquidation) to this court and dispose of the said suit. The costs of this application will also come out of the assets of the company. No other argument has been raised to oppose the transfer of the proceedings. For the reasons stated above, I direct that the proceedings pending before the High Court of Bombay in Suit No. 1291 of 1980 be transferred to this court. A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Registrar of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to enable him to transfer the suit together will all records, etc. filed by both parties to this court.
-
1992 (3) TMI 277 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Articles of association - Regulations required in case of unlimited company, company limited by guarantee or private company limited by shares, Power to make rules
-
1992 (3) TMI 276 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Allotment of shares, Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... payment to the subscribers. Such undertaking shall be filed expeditiously. (ii)The applicant shall file an affidavit in this court expeditiously confirming the statement made to the court that the applicant has allotted shares as shown in the table filed with the court and the applicant is entitled to appropriate a sum of Rs. 16,88,500 (rupees sixteen lakhs eighty-eight thousand and five hundred only) towards allotment money in respect of 2,05,900 shares allotted to the subscribers who submitted their application through respondent No. 1. (b)The prothonotary and senior master shall allow withdrawal of the abovereferred amounts after the affidavit and undertakings are approved and accepted by the court. The prothonotary and senior master shall allow withdrawal of moneys on the basis of a certified copy of the minutes of the order. (c)There shall be no order as to costs. Issue of certified copy is expedited. ------------------------- See page 207 supra. Here printed in italics.
-
1992 (3) TMI 275 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Procedure at sale ... ... ... ... ..... at, while directing the sale of the assets of the company, the court is primarily concerned with the interests of the creditors and contributories who are persons vitally interested in the assets of the company in liquidation. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, it is difficult to hold that the company judge was not conscious of his duty enjoined by law while exercising his power under rule 273 aforesaid. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Before parting with the judgment, I may observe that it is not very clear as to why the State of West Bengal did not deposit the balance amount of Rs. 30 lakhs within the time fixed and as to what steps have been taken by the company judge. As such, I make it clear that this judgment shall not be treated as a bar on the part of the learned company judge in taking any further steps in accordance with law. Altamas Kabir, J. mdash I agree.
-
1992 (3) TMI 249 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Detention order ... ... ... ... ..... . Union of India and Ors. . 20. Since the order of detention and petitioner rsquo s continued detention have been held to be illegal we do not go into the question of denial of opportunity to the detenu to have legal consultation and advice in the matter of making an effective representation and delay in forwarding the representation. 21. As already held above, that the order of detention is liable to be quashed, it is accordingly quashed. Petitioner rsquo s continued detention is also held to be illegal. This petition deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The detenu likewise Neema petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. 22. Assent per S.D. Jha, J. . - I would like to add the following - 23. In my opinion grounds I to V of detention set out in S. 3(1) may not in every case be read disjunctively. Subject to as aforesaid, I agree with the conclusion recorded by Brother Gyani, J. that the order suffers from lack of application of mind and on that account be quashed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 248 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... the matter before us, 8 witnesses as mentioned before us the evidence of whom has been relied upon by the Revenue are Revenue witnesses and it is the obligation of the Revenue to produce these witnesses. The Hon rsquo bie Supreme Court in the case of Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal, reported in S.T.C. (66) 292 which was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Chandra Industries, Jalandhar v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, reported in 1990 (28) ECR 165 (CEGAT-NRB) has held that where the assessee ask for the cross-examination of the witnesses the witnesses should be produced. In view of this observation, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut to re-adjudicate the same within 3 months from the date of Order. We, further, order that the Collector of Central Excise shall grant opportunity of personal hearing and shall also observe the principles of natural justice. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1992 (3) TMI 232 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Remission of duty by refund claim ... ... ... ... ..... he Customs Officers were associated in the survey and besides that the competent authority has issued a certificate dated 16-6-1988 the approach of those authorities is not justified. When the Collector (Appeals) has vaguely referred to some decision of the Bombay High Court, it is not possible for me to know which decision he has actually intended to refer to. But even then, each decision depends on the facts of the particular case. It is not possible for me to ascertain whether the facts were identical to the case here and whether the certificate was issued by the departmental authorities on the lines as indicated above. The approach of the authorities below does not appear to be in conformity with the provisions of law and hence cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the authorities below are set aside and the department is directed to consider the claim on merits and pass appropriate order according to law. Consequential relief to follow.
-
1992 (3) TMI 231 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... s payment of duty on the final product. It is not meant for stock and sale. The name itself suggests that it is a modified value added tax scheme. Hence, when the inputs which are received for the declared objective of utilisation in the final product by the receiver of input, are to be allowed diversion for home consumption, as such, it can be done only subject to specific provision laid down in Rule 57F(1)(ii). When the rule introduces the deeming concept of treating such inputs in respect of which credit has been taken on par with the goods manufactured in the recipient factory and the recipient of such inputs on par with the manufacturer of inputs, he has to comply with the requirement, if he seeks to remove the inputs without undergoing any process, on payment of duty as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules applicable to a manufacturer. Such a deeming concept, in our view, goes with the concept of modvat scheme and is not inconsistent. Hence we dismiss the appeal.
-
1992 (3) TMI 230 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... ed in terms of the undertaking executed by the importers. As regards the arguments advanced by the SDR, we are to take note of the position as laid down under the Customs Act. Under Section 15 of the Customs Act, rate of duty in respect of the warehoused goods shall be the one prevalent on the date on which the goods were actually removed from the warehouse. So long as the goods remain in the warehouse, there is no requirement of payment of duty. Hence the first occasion for demanding the interest would be the date, on which the goods are cleared from the warehouse and based on that, the period of detention in the warehouse and applying the rate of interest to the principal amount, interest is to be calculated. Applying the simple arithmetics, when the principal is zero, interest is also zero and that is what has been held by the Kerala High Court, with which no one can cater any doubt. 6. We therefore, do not find any merit in the Reference Applications and dismiss the same.
-
1992 (3) TMI 229 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Seizure of semi-finished precious stones from applicant’s premises ... ... ... ... ..... i, framed the following questions of law - ldquo 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case reliance can be placed on the statement of the appellant? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence cited against the appellant could be taken to be sufficient to raise a presumption in favour of the Department for the purpose of confiscation of the goods? 12. Accordingly, I order for referring the aforesaid questions of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. Registry is directed to take appropriate steps in this regard and refer the same to the Hon rsquo ble High Court along with the necessary annexures and papers. March 4, 1992 Sd/- (Harish Chander) Vice President This order may be sent for publication. Sd/- (Harish Chander) Vice President FINAL ORDER 13. In the light of the majority view the reference application is allowed and the questions of law set out in the order of Member (T) are referred to High Court under Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962.
-
1992 (3) TMI 228 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... has also been upheld by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. However, we agree with the contention of the appellant that the order of the Assistant Collector is totally at variance with the ground taken in the show- cause notice which was for classification of the goods under sub-heading 7326.90 CETA 1985. No reason has been given by the Assistant Collector for such deviation which is not permissible in law. The Assistant Collector rsquo s order is, therefore, unsustainable as it confirms classification of the goods on a ground totally absent in the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector to determine the issue of classification of the goods grate Bar afresh in accordance with law and giving the applicants opportunity of personal hearing and to lead such evidence as they may possess in the matter of their claim regarding the classification of the goods in question.
-
1992 (3) TMI 227 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rubber coated fabrics - Intermediate product ... ... ... ... ..... Rege appearing for the department drew my attention to a case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 5 (Bom.) and he submitted that, that judgment can be applied and it can be said that if the petitioners are manufacturing this particular item, it must necessarily be liable for excise duty, if it is covered under any of the items of Tariff. I am afraid that judgment cannot be applied as in that judgment there is an express finding to the effect that the article was saleable and marketable. 6. On the ratio of the decision quoted above, we hold that neither the rubber coated fabrics nor the friction tapes produced out of such fabrics could be deemed as dutiable under Item No. 19 of the Central Excise Tariff. Since the rubber coated tapes or friction tapes were not specified elsewhere in the tariff were correctly classifiable under Item 68. Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. 7. This also disposes of the cross-objections filed by the respondents.
-
1992 (3) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma Credit ... ... ... ... ..... nd are stored in packed condition. If that is the stand of the revenue, then it cannot be contended that wrapping paper is not integral part of the manufacture. If that is so, any material utilised must be component part of the raw material used or consumed in the finished products. Apart from that under Rule 56A of the Rules, the assesses would be entitled to the benefit of deduction of the duty to be charged on all wrapping papers, if any. Nothing contrary to the aforesaid was indicated to us by the revenue though asked to do so. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this question involved in these appeals is really of academic interest. On the ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s decision referred above, it has to be held that proforma credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was admissible to the respondents in respect of packing and wrapping paper used for packing reams of paper manufactured for sale. 5. In view of the above discussion the appeal is rejected.
-
1992 (3) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... r paper is deemed to be valid from the date of notification i.e. 18-7-1986, the date on which the industry was brought under compulosry licensing. It was for want of such clarification that the exemption under Notification No. 216/88-Cus. all along been denied to the applicants. Now that such evidence has been produced, we hold that it will be in the interest of justice to recall the Order No. 808/91-C dated 18-11-1991 of the Tribunal and to modify it because that order of the Tribunal was also passed against the applicants for want of the clarification from the Ministry of Industry. Order of the Tribunal is rectified in the following manner 2. The impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the case is remanded to the Assistant Collector having jurisdiction to consider the present clarification on the issue from the Ministry of Industry now produced in accordance with law and to determine the issue afresh after giving the applicants an opportunity of hearing .
-
1992 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, MADRAS
MODVAT credit ... ... ... ... ..... law. It is not as if the Respondents did not come on record as to the use of the copper for the purpose of the manufacture of the final products. The Respondents having filed the declaration in respect of copper in the covering letter and which can be taken to be copper in primary form and inasmuch as the tariff entry for both copper billets and copper wire rods is the same i.e. unwrought copper, it cannot be said there was no declaration as such for the Respondents rsquo product in question. We may observe that the notification issued under Rule 57A, the description of the input is given only by chapter heading and it was later that a proforma was prescribed for giving complete description of the goods. We, therefore, hold that the charge that the Respondents had not filed any proper declaration in respect of their goods cannot be sustained and the lower appellate authority rsquo s order therefore cannot be found fault with. The appeal of the Revenue is therefore dismissed.
-
1992 (3) TMI 223 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units - Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... greements, similar goods too for parties like M/s. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. In the aforesaid case of M/s. Blaze Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, Order No. 51/87, supra, it was held that the respondents was a independent units which existed much earlier and it was not dummy unit created by M/s. Blaze Enterprises. There was no financial tie up between the respondents and M/s. Blaze Enterprises. In this view of the matter, we find that the Collector (Appeals) rightly held that the decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Blaze Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Order No. 51 /87, supra, applies on all fours to the present case and, therefore, the respondents were entitled for the refund claim in both the cases. In the light of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the Collector (Appeals), in both the cases. 7. In the result, both the appeals are rejected being devoid of any merit.
-
1992 (3) TMI 222 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... wanted to do, the consequences of this action will follow from the language used in the letter. This is what the appellants have claimed and we find it difficult to accept the Department rsquo s plea to the contrary. Besides, it will appear from a reading of the letter dated 6-5-1988 which we have reproduced above, that it does not furnish any basis whatsoever for the demand of duty of Rs. 76,794/-. Although, the calculation is sought to be explained in the enclosure, but the latter does not improve matters. It has not been indicated why the rate of duty could be 150 45 15 either in the letter or in the enclosure. Moreover, the appellants rsquo claim that the assessment had been finalised by the letter dated 11-1-1988 and the same assessment could not be taken up for finalisation once again is also correct. In this view of the matter, we accept the appellants rsquo contention and set aside the impugned Order with such consequential relief as the appellants may be entitled to.
-
1992 (3) TMI 221 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption Fine and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... . per set is the normal price, at which the goods are offered for sale in the course of international trade. Hence, the findings and the order of the Additional Collector of Customs enhancing the assessable value for payment of assessment of duty are sustainable and we uphold the same. 5. Now the question remains as to whether redemption fine and penalty could be sustained. The appellants appear to have taken a different stand on enquiry. All the same, they have produced the suppliers rsquo price list themselves. Possibly they appear to have got a special discount. However, such a favoured price cannot be taken to be the normal price for assesssment. Thus, while upholding the enhancement in value, we are inclined to agree with the plea of the appellant that penal proceedings are not warranted, in view of the fact that the goods are life saving equipment and the appellants themselves produced all the documents. Hence, we deem it proper to remit the redemption fine and penalty.
........
|
