|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 288 Records
-
1993 (10) TMI 267 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Winding up – Statement of affairs to be made to official liquidator ... ... ... ... ..... held as follows (at page 2208) It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop the proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. In the present case, I am satisfied that the facts alleged against the respondent do not constitute an offence under sub-section (5) of section 454 of the Act. The proceedings against the respondent are, therefore, dropped and the company application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 243 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Motor vehicles - Interpretation of statutes - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... g into the manufacture of the specialized equipment that has paid duty or deemed to have paid duty. Therefore, benefit of Notification 162/86 during the period under consideration cannot be extended to the appellants. 15. emsp I, however, agree with the learned brother that demand of duty is time barred because the appellants have not suppressed anything and they had given their viewpoint fully to the department through the correspondence as well as remarks in the classification lists as to why they termed the equipment manufactured by them as ldquo duty paid rdquo . Even then the department did not take any action. It cannot avail the benefit of larger period of limitation on the untenable plea of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any rule with intent to evade payment of duty. Sd/-(P.C. Jain)Member (Technical)Dated 18-10-1993 16. emsp Order per S.D. Mohile, Member (T) . - I agree with ld. Member (T). Sd/-(S.D. Mohile)Member (T)Dated 22-10-1993
-
1993 (10) TMI 235 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
National Commission - Jurisdiction of - Whether a case, wherein elaborate evidence would have to be taken regarding purchase/sale of shares, their prevailing prices in market, etc., as also regarding precise instructions given by complainant on telephone to opposite party, as in instant case, and wherein allegations of fraud and manipulation of accounts were made which could not be decided on basis of affidavits, would be a fit case to be dealt with by consumer forums - Held, no
-
1993 (10) TMI 234 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Consumer - Meaning of - Whether those who purchase shares/debentures from existing shareholders and seek transfer from company in their name are persons who have hired services of company for consideration, consideration being value of shares/debentures and they are, therefore, consumers within meaning of section 2(1)(d) - Held, yes
-
1993 (10) TMI 233 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Powers of Court to rectify register of members ... ... ... ... ..... nathan v. K.M.M.A. Industries and Roadways Pvt. Ltd. 1993 76 Comp Cas 1 . As both the decisions are primarily based on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, which has been discussed by us hereinbefore, it is not necessary to again separately deal with these cited decisions. In our view the law has been correctly laid down by this court in the case of Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. i973 43 Comp Cas 189 (Delhi). The contrary view expressed in Harnam Singh 1992 74 Comp Cas 726 (Delhi) is not correct. Conclusion 1.The jurisdiction exercised by the company court under section 155 of the Act is discretionary and summary in nature. 2.In exercise of discretionary and summary jurisdiction, the company court can decline to entertain petitions involving disputed and complicated questions requiring examination of extensive oral and documentary evidence. 3.The remedy of suit for adjudication of disputes relating to title to shares is not barred. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1993 (10) TMI 232 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in proceedings for enforcement of a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act it is permissible to impeach the award on the merits?
Held that:- In view of the provision in the scheme, all pending suits, appeals or other proceedings of whatever nature by or against the transferor company, viz., Renusagar, shall not abate or be discontinued or in any way be prejudicially affected by reason of the transfer of the undertaking of Renusagar and the said proceedings may be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against Renusagar as if the scheme had not been made. The scheme of amalgamation does not, therefore, in any way affect the continuance of the proceedings in the above appeals in this court by Renusagar and in these circumstances, we find no ground for substituting the name of Hindalco Industries Ltd., as the appellant in place of Renusagar in C. A. No. 71 of 1990. The said application is, therefore, rejected.
In the result, C.A. Nos. 71 and 71A of 1990 and C.A. No. 379 of 1992 are dismissed and the decree passed by the High Court is affirmed with the direction that in terms of the award an amount of US $ 12,333,355.14 is payable by Renusagar to General Electric out of which a sum of US $ 6,289,800 has already been paid by Renusagar in discharge of the decretal amount and the balance amount payable by Renusagar under the decree is US $ 6,043,555.14 which amount on conversion in Indian rupees at the rupee dollar exchange rate of ₹ 31.53 per dollar prevalent at the time of this judgment comes to ₹ 19,05,53,293.56. Renusagar will be liable to pay future interest at 18 per cent. on this amount of ₹ 19,05,53,293.56 from fine date of this judgment till payment. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1993 (10) TMI 231 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Triputi should be made liable to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum?
Held that:- As already referred to the various orders of this court which indicate quite clearly with what reluctance and over what span of time Triputi paid the sum of Rs. 1 crore 98 lakhs ; that itself makes the payment of interest thereon appropriate. Coupled therewith is the undertaking aforementioned. We are, therefore, of the view that Triputi must pay interest upon the amount of Rs. 1 crore 98 lakhs at the rate of 15% per annum from January 1, 1989, till payment. Such payment shall be made within 12 weeks from today. We make it clear that in the event that the amount of interest as aforementioned is not paid within 12 weeks from today, it shall be open to one or more of the aggrieved parties to take appropriate proceedings against Triputi and its directors.
-
1993 (10) TMI 230 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court to which the appeal lies under section 10F from an order of the Company Law Board is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company is situate or it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the Company Law Board makes the order under appeal?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The expression "the High Court" in section 10F of the Companies Act means the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate as indicated by section 2(11) read with section 10(1)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, in the present case, the appeal against the order of the Company Law Board would lie in the Madras High Court which has jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate and not the Delhi High Court merely because the order was made by the Company Law Board at Delhi. This appeal is allowed and the impugned order made by the Delhi High Court is set aside resulting in acceptance of the preliminary objection raised by the appellants in the Delhi High Court.
-
1993 (10) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Duty liability - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... ia provides that recovery shall be made all such duties of excise (i.e. duty leviable on excisable goods removed within the factory of production for consumption or utilisation in the manufacture of any other commodity) which have not been collected as if the amendments referred to in sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. This provides a complete answer to the appellants rsquo contention in this regard. 10. emsp The other contentions of the appellants need no discussion in the light of the above findings. The submission that short-levies and excess levies on wrapper paper, depending on the difference between the duty rates on the wrapper paper and the wrapped paper, would have cancelled each other, does not need to be commented upon. Every short levy or refund is a separate cause of action and needs to be pursued on its own merits. 11. emsp In the result, we reject the appeal. Consequently our Stay Order No. 210/83-C, dated the 21-7-1983, is hereby vacated.
-
1993 (10) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... them out it is curable. Thus, if a judgment happens not to be signed and is inadvertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects in the mode of its subsequent authentication. 14. emsp In the matter before us, Ms. S.V. Maruthi, Member (Judicial) has left the Tribunal on 2-11-1992. Even if it is assumed that a detailed order could be issued later, since she has resigned the Membership of the Tribunal due to her elevation as a Judge of the Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, she is in no position to sign the order. We have duly considered the judgments cited by the learned advocate which do not help him. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Order dated 13-4-1992 is not a valid order in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we order that the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue will be heard on merits on 15th November, 1993.
-
1993 (10) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Felt - Stage of completion of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ld be received by them after latexing and the Collector has granted for such procedure, we are of the view that Department was not right in raising demand beyond six months prior to the issue of show cause notice. Accordingly, we concur with the argument advanced by the appellant rsquo s counsel that portion of the demand was barred by time. 8. emsp As regards valuation, we find that Department was not correct in raising duty on the value of latexed materials since duty was chargeable on the pre-latexed goods. Hence the value of pre-latexed material is to be taken into consideration while determining value of the goods for the purpose of charging duty. Taking over all facts and circumstances of the case particularly with reference to the fact that the appellants were under bona fide impression that the goods in question are semi-finished goods, we do not find any justification to impose penalty, on the appellants. With this modification this appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (10) TMI 200 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import of canalised item being permitted under OGL by the Customs House ... ... ... ... ..... al only on the ground that the Custom House was allowing identical consignment in the past. Even in the impugned order this position is reflected. Moreover, the L/C was opened on 7-1-1985. Hence, it cannot be said that the L/C was opened after knowing the clarification dated 15-1-1985 issued by the I.T.C. authotities. In these circumstances, when a firm commitment by opening the L/C was made and the goods have come in accordance with the L/C opened and the Department had been allowing similar clearances in the past based on the STC clarification, we find no reason to interfere with the approach adopted earlier. We also agree with Shri Jain that the State Trading Coporation is not the recognised authority to give clarification, But the Department seems to have acted under this clarification earlier and it has become an established practice. Such a practice can be changed by giving a public notice in advance. Only in this view, we allow the appeal and remit the redemption fine.
-
1993 (10) TMI 199 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Creams - Drugs and cosmetics ... ... ... ... ..... ontrol) Order, 1979. Hence price of the product in question as such was fixed by the Government but S.S.I. Unit has been exempted from getting fixed retail price. To avail concessional rate of duty under notification the manufacturer should have licence issued under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and price of product should have been fixed under Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979. In the notification we do not find any condition that the fixation of price should be for the specific branded product manufactured by a S.S.I. Unit as it was rightly pointed out by the appellants in their grounds of appeal. It is sufficient that price of that product as such of that industry had been fixed and once in this case the price of the product has been fixed as per order of the Government, we do not find any justification to deny the benefit in terms of Notification No. 126/86, dated 1-3-1986. In the view we have taken, we set aside the impugned order and, accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
1993 (10) TMI 198 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... od, they should have ensured delivery of the appeals in the office of the Collector (Appeals) personally. He also pleads that suitable deposits be ordered, in case the appeals are remanded back to the Collector (Appeals) on merits. 6. emsp After hearing both sides, we find that the unit is under BIFR and the factory is reported to have been closed since long and hence posting of the appeals within the limited period has to be viewed with leniency it otherwise deserves. Hence, we condone the delay and remand the cases back to the Collector (Appeals) who may consider waiver of pre-deposit, if the case otherwise warrants and if he so waives deposit, he may also go into the merits of the appeals and pass orders in accordance with law. In case he finds that pre-deposit is necessary, suitable personal hearing may be given to the appellants and thereafter pass orders. 7. All the three appeals are disposed of by way of remand. Hence stay applications do not survive for consideration.
-
1993 (10) TMI 197 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Re-manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ven treating this process as manufacture, the duty paid on copper rods, which has been returned under D-3 declaration and taken into use in the manufacture of copper rods, would be eligible for modvat credit, in which case the effective duty payable would be nil. 3. emsp Shri Singh, the ld. JDR, on behalf of the Department, however, contends that this is not a case falling within Rule 173H and the inputs were not brought under modvat scheme. Moreover, the melting and remaking of the copper rods has to be treated as manufacture. 4. After hearing both the sides, even if it is treated as manufacture, so long as the duty-paid copper rods have been utilised in the remanufacture of copper rods, modvat credit would be admissible. In this prima facie view of the matter, we grant stay and waiver of recovery of the duty and penalty. The plant and machinery ordered confiscation should not be disposed of by the Department and the normal course of production should not be interfered with.
-
1993 (10) TMI 196 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Adjudication demand and appeal ... ... ... ... ..... c plea has been made for extending the benefit of exemption Notification No. 217/86. The Collector (Appeals) could not have also refused to go into this aspect on the ground that it is a non-issue. On a perusal of the Notification No. 217/86 and also the factual position reported before us, prima facie, we find that the applicants seem to be having a case with regard to the ammonia manufactured and used in the production of melamine under Notification No. 217/86. Shri Mondal rsquo s objection is that it is used in the molten urea. However, he does not dispute that it is also an input covered by the same notification and is eligible for further utilisation in the manufacture of melamine. Considering the prima facie ground, we direct the applicants only to furnish personal bond covering the duty amount within a period of four weeks failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On furnishing the personal bond, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the duty amount.
-
1993 (10) TMI 195 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Accounts and records - Maintenance of ... ... ... ... ..... he demarcation of appeals between Special Bench and Regional Bench has to be made as per the contents of the appeal and not as per the points subsequently argued at the time of hearing. The Appellate Tribunal itself in the case of Collector v. National Chemical Works - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 160 (Tribunal) has held that if under the law a Bench lacks jurisdictions, the waiver of an objection by the party cannot confer jurisdiction on that Bench. In India Jute Co. v. Collctor - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 640, the Tribunal held that when a question relating to rate of duty or value of goods is raised in the grounds of appeal and the Tribunal has not dealt with it, rather it has disposed of the appeal on the preliminary issue it cannot be said that order of Tribunal did not relate to rate of duty or value of goods. In the light of these decisions and statutory provision of Section 35D(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the matter needs to be dealt with by the concerned Special Bench.
-
1993 (10) TMI 194 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Quantification of ... ... ... ... ..... under Section 11A. If the duty specified in the show cause notice is sought to be modified, the revised duty amount, on adjudication, has to be determined by the adjudicating authority. However, he does not press for remand of the case on this ground. In any case, there is no mala fide in the case warranting imposition of penalty. 3. emsp After hearing both the sides, we find that duty demand has not been determined as yet. Hence penalty cannot prima facie be enforced without quantifying the duty. We grant stay and waiver of deposit of penalty, leaving the liberty to the applicant to revive the stay application, as and when the duty amount is quantified.
-
1993 (10) TMI 193 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... her the present applicants need not have filed the appeal being the owner of the truck, whose truck has been ordered confiscation, Shri Mondal could not specifically state as to whether this requirement is necessary or not. In any case, we find that even before issue of show cause notice, the Department was well aware of the owner and his statement is also recorded and his truck is proposed to be confiscated. Hence, at the time of provisional release, a formal no objection rsquo should have been obtained from the applicants viz. the owner of the truck. In any case, when the owner of the truck whose truck was ordered confiscation appears before us as an appellant, we cannot refuse to entertain the appeal. The reasons given are adequate for condoning the delay, since the undisputed position is that no show cause notice was issued to the applicants and even the copy of the order in original has not been endorsed to them. Hence, we condone the delay and take the appeal on record.
-
1993 (10) TMI 192 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation and penalty - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... . 4. emsp After hearing both the sides, I find that there is no dispute that the bonded store room was undergoing repairing work, on account of which the goods have been stored outside. The only omission on their part is non-intimation of the same to the Department. For this technical violation, seizure and confiscation and redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- are not called for. However, as regards, the 187 bottles, since the allegation is that they are not accounted for, their seizure and confiscation can be justified. Taking into account the duty involved on these goods is only to the extent of Rs. 157.81 and also the plea that it is on account of mix up, I do not propose to sustain any redemption fine even with regard to this quantity. However, for the technical violations, I would sustain a penalty of Rs, 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). In the result, the redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/- is remitted, and the penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- only with consequential relief.
........
|
