|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 515 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 1044 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent as provided in notification under section 5 of the RST Act. 16.. The revenue authorities have concurrently erred in not correctly understanding the true import of scheme of the three notifications and in ignoring that State Government who has issued two notifications simultaneously cannot be presumed to have issued a redundant notification. Principle that special provision excludes application of general has no application to the present case. Moreover the State Government has itself issued such clarification on February 28, 1977. 17.. As a result in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No. 25 (annexure 6) under section 8(5) of the CST Act where direction was not to pay any tax on the sales of rice made in the circumstances in which the petitioner has made. 18.. Accordingly these revisions are allowed. The orders of lower authorities are set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1043 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... later than the date specified in clause (a), he will be entitled only for part of the period notified under sub-section (1) which shall be computed from the date of application till the end of the period of facility. Thus, the application for grant of eligibility certificate could not have been rejected on the ground that it was made after expiry of the period of six months from the date of commencement of the period of facility. The Tribunal ought to have considered each and every ground and should have given finding. The Tribunal has not at all applied its mind to the facts of the case and grounds taken by the appellant in its memo of appeal. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The revision is allowed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal considering each and every ground taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal and it shall give specific finding in this regard. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1042 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mmittee. Once the revisionist s unit is covered by the definition of the new unit as contained in Explanation (2) its case shall have to be considered in the light of clause (a) of Explanation (2) and not in the light of clause (d) of Explanation (1). Both the Divisional Level Committee as well as the Tribunal fell in error in holding that the purchase of the plant and machinery by the revisionist from U.P. Financial Corporation was acquired for use by another factory and therefore, the revisionist was not entitled to exemption in respect of fixed capital investment in such plant and machinery, etc. The matter therefore, deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in this light and in the light of the observations made above. 8.. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The Tribunal s order dated January 19, 2000 is set aside to the extent stated above and the Tribunal is directed to redecide the appeal in the light of the directions made above. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1041 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... red from various independent sprocket manufacturers in pilfer proof, skin board packing does not bring into existence any new product/article known to the market, as such the said activity does not amount to manufacture.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1040 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the applicant Company is a private limited company and whether Ram Avtar is a competent to file the present application for ejectment ?
Whether the property in dispute is a rented land and if so its effect ?
If issues No.2 is proved in the affirmative whether the applicant company requires the premises in dispute for its bonafide use and occupation ?
Whether the suit land is a non-residential building and as such the ground of ejectment for personal use is not available to the applicant ?
Whether the personal necessity of the applicant stands satisfied during the pendency of the present petition ?
Whether the bar under the proviso is applicable only to the filing of an application or is it a bar on the right of the landlord?
Held that:- Direct the original authority, namely, the Court of the Rent Controller, Jagadhari, to allow the parties to adduce evidence, if necessary, to the limited extent of deciding the above issue framed by us. The Rent Controller, Jagadhari, shall decide the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed duly modifying the orders under appeal.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1039 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ities in support of the contention. No doubt, the interest is leviable mandatorily, but before that, it must be established that the assessee is liable to deduct the tax at source. 33. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the assessee was not liable to deduct tax from the royalty/commission payments made under the agreements and therefore, cannot be treated as an assessee in default. The assessee, therefore, is also not liable to pay any interest under section 201(1A). 34. In the view we have taken as above, it is not necessary for us to examine the two subsidiary contentions raised by Mr. Pardiwalla viz., that there was no actual payment by the assessee under the agreements and therefore, there as no liability to deduct tax and that when the payee has paid the tax on the royalty/commission on the footing that they were income from business, the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to demand the tax from the assessee. 35. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1037 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Liquidation of Company ... ... ... ... ..... as never the subject matter of the winding up proceedings. While disposing of a matter in the winding up proceedings, the powers of the winding up Court is limited only to the subject matter of the Company in liquidation. It cannot encumber other property. 31. In view of the above, we feel constrained to hold that the Judgment under appeal cannot stand the test of appeal and it was liable to be set aside. 32. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. The respondent No. 2 that is the petitioner before the winding up Court is at liberty to take possession through 10, Guha Road as was originally directed. If it is found by the Official Liquidator that possession cannot be given through 10 Guha Road, in that case the respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to apply before the winding up Court for refund of entire consideration money and the said Court shall dispose of that application in accordance of law. V. K. Gupta, J.--I agree. 33. Appeal allowed
-
2000 (3) TMI 1036 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... the contract with the applicants for fabrication of the same that the matter is of recurring nature and that the applicant is a SSI Unit whose sole business is to fabricate this for the Railways and, therefore, cancellation of order by the Railways has resulted in severe financial loss. Learned DR fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we allow the miscellaneous application and list the appeals for final hearing on 15-5-2000. (Dictated in open Court)
-
2000 (3) TMI 1035 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... t to evade payment of duty mentioned in the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. In such a situation, extended period for recovery of duty cannot be invoked. It is settled law that where proviso to Section 11A is sought to be invoked, the authorities should specifically allege which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed by the assessee to extent the period from six months to five years and a mere change of opinion is no ground to resort to the proviso. In the present case, it is more a change of opinion than any of the actions or omissions of the assessees which caused the delay in the demand of duty within the normal period of six months. Therefore, the appellants rsquo submission regarding time bar has to be accepted and the duty demand held to the issue beyond the time limit prescribed in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appeals are, therefore, allowed on the ground of time bar and the impugned order is set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1034 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... one cannot get evidence of mere asking for which relies upon does not answer. After all the Valuation Rules and notes to this rule have been framed in a situation where the rule making authorities were no doubt aware of the difficulties of getting evidence of valuation and had taken such difficulties into account. The rules are part of the law that has to be applied. If evidence is required for application of that law it has to be provided. In the absence of that evidence the rule cannot be applied. 12. emsp It would follow from these discussions that there was insufficient basis for the application of rule 5, and therefore all the enhancement of the value. We have already dismissed earlier the Collector rsquo s view that enhancement of value is justified on the basis of relationship between supplier and buyer. It is therefore to be held that there is insufficient material to question the value declared. 13. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1033 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Dutiability - Waste - Fixing of norm ... ... ... ... ..... yarn from the factory for the manufacture of the doubled/multifolded yarn. 6. emsp Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below in our view has rightly assessed in all the appeals fixed norm of the waste as 0.35 correctly except in Appeal No. E/2483/99-D wherein the norm of the waste cannot be said to have been correctly fixed by the authorities below. There existed no cogent reason for the authorities to deviate in that appeal from the norm 0.35 as fixed in other appeals and fix another norm of 0.75 waste therein. Therefore, the norm of the waste fixed in that appeal is accordingly modified to 0.35 . 7. emsp The validity of the impugned orders in all these appeals, has not been challenged before us on any other ground. 8. emsp In view of the discussion made above, all the appeals of the appellants are ordered to be dismissed except with a slight modification in Appeal No. E/2483/98-D by changing the norm of waste from 0.30 to 0.35 , therein.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1032 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... egistration as SSI unit initially taken in the name of the firm did not stand effected by merely joining of a new partner in place of old partner. No fresh registration was required to be got done after the change of the partners of the firm on execution of the fresh partnership deed. The exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 also did not contain any such condition requiring re-registration of the firm as SSI unit on account of change in its constitution. 8. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the view taken by the authorities below, that fresh registration as SSI unit was required by the appellant firm on account of change in its constitution, although the name of the firm remained the same, must be held to be erroneous in law and deserves to be set aside. 9. emsp Consequently, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal of the appellants is accepted with a consequential relief, if any, permissible to them, under the law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1031 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Benefit of Notification Nos. 54/86-C.E., 91/88-C.E. or 171/88-C.E. not deniable ... ... ... ... ..... Customs duty was also exempted on waste and scrap subject to certain conditions. They have produced the certificates from M/s. Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. to the effects that waste and scrap was sold through the corporation only. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has not referred to such certificates. He has relied upon a report dated 28-11-97 of the Dy. Commissioner which had not been disclosed to the Appellants. It is mentioned in the impugned order that according to report the waste and scrap was sold to private parties whereas it was required to be sold to M.S.T.C. The said report is silent about the submissions of the Appellants that the waste and scrap was sold through M.S.T.C. Accordingly we are of the view that the Appellants are eligible to avail of the Notification No. 54/86, 91/88 or 171/88 at the relevant time in respect of impugned waste and scrap and as such the order is set aside and appeal is allowed without considering the aspect of time-limit.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1030 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and Penalty - Non-accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... .R. Coils processed and cleared by them. The Commissioner has not considered the said certificate while coming to the findings about unaccountal of C.R. Coils. The learned Advocate had contended that as per Annexure to Panchnama, the quantity of C.R. Coils was 719.428 and not 156-972 M.T. and as such it cannot be said that the Appellants had not supplied details as to how this figure was arrived at. We also take note of the fact that all the seized goods were found lying in the factory premises and there has been no allegation that the goods were intended to be removed without entering into statutory records. On appreciation of all the facts, we are of the view that the Department has not successfully substantiated their charge that the impugned goods were in fully manufactured conditions and as such confiscation of the impugned goods is not sustainable. Accordingly penalty is also not imposable on the Appellants. In view of this, the order is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1028 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Intermediate products ... ... ... ... ..... ating authority while applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment to the case of the appellants. 6. emsp In the instant case, this aspect of the matter regarding the passing of incidence of the duty by the appellants to the consumers, before disallowing their claim for refund on the principle of unjust enrichment, has not been gone into by both the authorities below. This issue cannot be decided by the Tribunal being a question of fact depending upon the evidence to be adduced by the appellants about the passing or non-passing of the incidence of duty to the consumers by them. Therefore, the matter deserves to be sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the refund claim of the appellants afresh keeping in view the observations made above after giving opportunity to the appellants for adducing evidence, if any. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellants is accordingly allowed/disposed of by way of remand in the light of the discussion made above. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1027 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Payment of duty, redemption fine and penalty - Redemption fine - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... pondents. 4. emsp We have heard the submissions of ld. DR. We have perused the evidence on record. We note that Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for payment of duty at the time of exercising the option for redeeming the goods. In the instant case this aspect has been lost together by the adjudicating authority. In the circumstances we hold that the impugned order has legal infirmity to that extent the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed on this point. 5. emsp Revenue has also contested that the redemption fine is too low. We find from the records placed before us that the Department has not substantiated their claim by any evidence that the margin of profit was not wiped out by conducting any market enquiries. In support of their contention since no evidence has been placed on record, therefore, we do not like to interfere with the quantum of redemption fine. 6. emsp These six appeals of Revenue are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1026 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Winding up -Suits stayed on winding up order ... ... ... ... ..... ourt. The impugned order of the learned Company Judge dated 30-10-1998 is appealable under section 483 of the said Act. But the appellant has filed this appeal as a Letters Patent Appeal. Since no objection has been taken on that score by the respondents, this Court is not called upon to decide that issue and specially when the said objection is technical in nature. 42. Therefore, considering the matters from all possible angles this Court cannot sustain the impugned order dated 30-10-1998 passed by the learned Company Judge. The said order is hereby set aside. 43. This Court, therefore, remits the matter to the learned Company Judge for hearing the application of the appellant for revocation of leave afresh in the light of the observation made in this judgment and also in accordance with the law laid down in Industrial Credit and Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. rsquo s case (supra) which have been discussed above. This appeal thus succeeds. There will be no order as to cost.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1025 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Oppression and mismanagement ... ... ... ... ..... the articles by refusing to re-elect the directors of whose action they disapprove. It cannot be inferred from the said decision that there is any bar for filing any suit by any shareholder for the mismanagement of the company by its directors and for the same reason it cannot be said that such right will not survive to the legal representatives of the deceased shareholder in such suit. 12. Considering the Law laid down by the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corpn. of India rsquo s case (supra) and World Wide Agencies rsquo case (supra) above relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents, and considering the facts of the case in hand, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order allowing the respondents to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and being entitled to pursue the suit. 13. In the result, the petition fails. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated. Petition fails.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1024 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Amalgamation ... ... ... ... ..... he former case, the resultant shareholding would be 50.31 per cent, whereas in the latter case, it would be 50.70 per cent. The learned single judge therefore, commented in paragraph 41 that it would be more beneficial to TTL if the share exchange ratio is valued as suggested by the appellants. This gives an indicia that TTL would not have acted on the sole consideration of boosting up its own stake and interest in the transferee-company. Finally, it must be mentioned that the scheme of merger as proposed was approved by an overwhelming majority including financial institutions. Even after excluding the shares of TTL, the scheme was approved with 1,44,533 votes cast in its favour as against 61,536 votes against the scheme. It is also relevant to mention that the scheme in so far as merger of three other companies is concerned has already been approved by the Karnataka High Court. For all these reasons, we see no merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed without costs.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1022 - MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Consumer - Definition of ... ... ... ... ..... against the appellant. Consequently, the findings rendered by the District Forum cannot be sustained and the same as also its order is set aside by allowing the appeal. 20. We direct the Registry of the Commission to forward copies of this judgment to District Forum, Dadar as also to all the Forum in this State, especially highlighting observation herein appearing in paras 13 to 19 for the information and guidance. Order (i)The appeal is allowed and Order dated 7-11-1998 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District in C. No. 584 of 1996 is set aside and the said complaint of the complainant is dismissed. (ii)As far as this appeal is concerned, the parties shall bear their own cost. (iii)The office is directed to furnish copies of judgment to the parties on 27-3-2000. (iv)The amount deposited by the appellant in the District Forum, B.S.D. as per interim order to be refunded to him after a period of appeal over i.e., after 11-5-2000. Appeal allowed.
........
|
