Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1988 1988 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 248 Records

• 1988 (7) TMI 380
  
  Issues: Validity of reassessment proceeding under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the period 1977-78.
  
  In this case, the petitioners, a company engaged in manufacturing wheat products, challenged the validity of a reassessment proceeding initiated by respondent No. 2 under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 for the period 1977-78. The petitioners had claimed deduction and exemption for sales made outside Bihar through arhatias, which was allowed by the assessing officer in the original assessment order dated 11th April, 1979.
  
  The Deputy Commissioner initiated a reassessment proceeding in 1982 based on audit objections, which the petitioners sought to understand by requesting a certified copy, but were refused. The assessing officer summarized the audit objection, stating that the deduction granted for sales outside Bihar should not have been allowed as the products were manufactured from wheat purchased on furnishing a declaration in form IX.
  
  The petitioners contended that the reassessment was based on the same materials already on record, which would amount to a change of opinion by the assessing authority, not permissible under the law. The High Court referred to a Full Bench decision in Bhimraj Madanlal v. State of Bihar [1984] 56 STC 273, which clarified that a mere change of opinion on the same facts does not constitute 'information' for reassessment under section 18(1) of the Act.
  
  Considering the Full Bench decision and the fact that the reassessment was based on existing materials, the Court upheld the petitioners' contention, quashed the reassessment order contained in annexure-2, and allowed the writ application without costs.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 379
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of sales in the course of export under the Central Sales Tax Act.
  2. Interpretation of the conditions for a sale to qualify for exemption under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed a reference under section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act regarding the classification of sales as export under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue raised questions concerning the nature of sales amounting to Rs. 1,21,96,490 and whether they qualified as sales in the course of export out of India. The Court highlighted the conditions under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the requirement for a transfer of documents of title after crossing customs frontiers for a sale to be deemed in the course of export. The Court noted that the Board erred in insisting on a foreign buyer for the applicability of the second part of section 5(1), contrary to established legal precedent (Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of M.P. [1982] 50 STC 287). The Court concluded that without assessing if the specified conditions were met, the Board's decision to exclude the sales from the export category was unjustified.
  
  2. The factual background involved the rejection of the assessee's claim for export sales during the assessment year 1960-61. The Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue upheld the rejection, citing the absence of a contract with a foreign buyer. Additionally, the disallowance of claims due to incomplete C forms was a subject of contention. During the hearing, certain questions were conceded by the assessee, leading to a focus on questions 1 and 2. The Court reframed these questions to address the core issue, whether the Board's decision on the sales totaling Rs. 1,21,96,490 was valid under section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The judgment clarified the legal requirements for sales to qualify as exports and criticized the Board's misinterpretation of the law. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the need for a proper assessment of statutory conditions before classifying sales as non-export transactions.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the classification of sales as exports under the Central Sales Tax Act. The judgment underscored the legal criteria for determining export sales and criticized the Board's misapplication of the law in this case. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory requirements and legal precedent in assessing the nature of sales transactions for tax purposes.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 378
  
  Issues:
  1. Proper exercise of discretion by the first respondent under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
  2. Legality of exhibit P9 order issued by the first respondent.
  3. Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter.
  4. Adherence of statutory authorities to guidelines in passing orders on stay petitions.
  5. Public interest and repercussions of arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by authorities.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Proper exercise of discretion by the first respondent under section 34(5) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
  The appellant argued that the first respondent failed to exercise discretion in accordance with the law while passing exhibit P9 order. The Court noted that the first respondent, as an appellate authority, has the power to pass appropriate orders in stay petitions pending appeals, as specified under section 34(5) of the Act.
  
  Issue 2: Legality of exhibit P9 order issued by the first respondent.
  The Court found that the first respondent had acted mechanically and without proper application of mind while passing exhibit P9 order. It was observed that the order did not adhere to the guidelines laid down by previous court decisions, making it illegal and unauthorized.
  
  Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter.
  The Court held that if a statutory authority fails to exercise discretion in a reasonable manner, the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the authority to reconsider the matter in accordance with the law. In this case, the Court directed the first respondent to reevaluate the matter and exercise discretion properly under section 34(5) of the Act.
  
  Issue 4: Adherence of statutory authorities to guidelines in passing orders on stay petitions.
  The Court emphasized the importance of statutory authorities following guidelines and principles laid down in previous court decisions while passing orders on stay petitions. Failure to do so may result in irreparable harm to both parties involved and public interest.
  
  Issue 5: Public interest and repercussions of arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by authorities.
  The Court highlighted the public importance of statutory authorities exercising discretion in accordance with the law. It expressed concern over the casual and careless manner in which authorities were passing orders on stay petitions, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of facts and adherence to legal principles to prevent harm to parties and public interest.
  
  In conclusion, the Court set aside the judgment of the learned single judge, allowed the writ appeal, quashed exhibit P9 order, and directed the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition in accordance with the law. The Court also emphasized the importance of statutory authorities functioning independently and in compliance with legal obligations to prevent undue harm to parties and public interest.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 377
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of sales as exports under the Central Sales Tax Act.
  2. Justification of sales being outside the State and not in the course of inter-State trade.
  3. Affording opportunity for producing correct D form for a sale to a Government Department.
  4. Tax liability on material purchased for construction work.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The case involved the determination of whether sales amounting to Rs. 34.54 lakhs were considered as exports under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Board of Revenue had to establish if the sales met the criteria of being effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after crossing the customs frontiers of India. The Court highlighted the necessity for the Board to address these conditions before concluding that the sales were not in the course of export. The Court found the Board's decision lacking as it did not provide a finding based on the specific case's material. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Act for sales to qualify as exports.
  
  2. The issue of whether the sales were outside the State of M.P. and not in the course of inter-State trade was deferred pending the Board's findings on the export status of the sales. The Court declined to answer this question until the primary issue was resolved. This decision ensured a systematic approach to addressing the legal queries raised in the case.
  
  3. The question regarding the opportunity to produce the correct D form for a sale to a Government Department was conceded by the assessee's counsel, acknowledging that no such opportunity was sought. The Court's response to this issue was affirmative and against the assessee, aligning with the concession made during the proceedings.
  
  4. The final issue pertained to the tax liability on material purchased for construction work. The Court reframed the question to focus on whether the Board was justified in imposing purchase tax on the construction material. The Board's decision was supported by the Court, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove exemption eligibility under the Act. The judgment highlighted the Board's use of the best judgment provision due to insufficient evidence of purchases solely from registered dealers, ultimately upholding the tax imposition.
  
  In conclusion, the Court provided detailed analyses and responses to the legal issues raised in the reference, ensuring a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions governing the sales tax assessment. The judgment clarified the criteria for sales to qualify as exports under the Central Sales Tax Act and upheld the Board's decision on tax liability for construction material purchases based on the available evidence.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 376
  

  Whether the purchase of pulses effected by the assessee prior to May 1, 1977, could be subjected to tax under section 3-D(2) of the Sales Tax Act?

  Whether a provision in statute or rule is mandatory or directory?

  Held that:- We are clearly of the opinion that the learned single Judge, while holding that the law contemplates and entitles the assessee to lead evidence to the satisfaction of the assessing authority had not correctly appreciated the mode of proof provided under the rules for rebutting the presumption in order to get benefit of tax exemption.

  The result of the aforesaid discussion is that sub-section (7)(a) of section 3-D of the Act is mandatory in nature and unless the proof is given, as required therein, it cannot be said that onus has been discharged and the assessee would not be entitled to exemption by examining other evidence. In conclusion we hold that the view taken by the sales tax authority does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The sales tax revision is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 367
  

  Whether the Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. was an "own" source of generation of electricity for the Hindalco?

  Whether the order passed by the State Government, having regard to the nature of the order passed, was in accordance with the principles of natural justice in so far as the same were applicable to the facts of this case?

  Held that:- The High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the State Government in its entirety. The High Court should have allowed the claim of Hindalco for the reduced rate of bill on the basis that Renusagar Power Plant was its own source of generation under section 3(1)(c) and the bills should have been made by the Board on that basis. But the High Court was in error in upholding the respondents' contention that the State Government acted improperly and not in terms of section 3(4) of the Act and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, allow the appeal to the extent indicated above and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to that extent and restore the State Government's impugned order subject to the modification of the bills on the basis of own source of generation. We, therefore, direct that the electricity bills must be so made as to give Hindalco the benefit of the rate applicable to its own source of generation from Renusagar Plant.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 366
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the show-cause notices dated March 13, 1987, and June 24, 1987.
  2. Legality of the order dated November 13, 1987, passed by the Company Law Board under Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956.
  3. The role and jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in regulating the schemes of the petitioner-company.
  4. The sufficiency and adequacy of the materials on record for invoking Section 408 of the Companies Act.
  5. Compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural requirements by the Company Law Board.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of the Show-Cause Notices:
  The petitioners challenged the show-cause notices dated March 13, 1987, and June 24, 1987, issued by the Company Law Board. The notices were based on observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. The Supreme Court had noted several issues with the company's schemes, including lower yields for subscribers, misleading advertisements, and the choice of field staff based on social, political, or official connections. The petitioners argued that these observations did not justify the invocation of Section 408 of the Companies Act.
  
  2. Legality of the Order Dated November 13, 1987:
  The Company Law Board's order dated November 13, 1987, appointed four government directors to the petitioner-company's board for three years. The petitioners contended that the conditions precedent for invoking Section 408 were absent. Section 408 allows the Central Government to appoint directors to prevent the affairs of the company from being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the company's or public interest. The petitioners argued that the materials on record did not establish that the company's affairs were being conducted in such a manner.
  
  3. Role and Jurisdiction of the RBI:
  The petitioners argued that the RBI, as the statutory authority, had already issued directions regulating the company's schemes in public interest. The RBI's directions included provisions for the minimum rate of return, security of deposit, and advertising norms. The petitioners contended that they had complied with these directions and that the Company Law Board had no jurisdiction to regulate the schemes further. The court agreed, stating that the RBI was the competent authority to regulate the schemes and that the Company Law Board could not bypass the RBI's directions.
  
  4. Sufficiency and Adequacy of Materials on Record:
  The petitioners argued that the Company Law Board had taken into consideration grounds not disclosed in the show-cause notice, such as the company's inability to comply with the RBI's directions. The court held that the decision taken on grounds not disclosed in the show-cause notice was illegal and void, violating the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the Company Law Board must be satisfied based on sufficient evidence that the company's affairs were being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the company's or public interest.
  
  5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
  The petitioners contended that the Company Law Board had not complied with the principles of natural justice, as it had taken into consideration grounds not disclosed in the show-cause notice. The court agreed, stating that the Company Law Board had traveled beyond the show-cause notice and that the decision was based on speculative findings. The court emphasized that the power under Section 408 could only be exercised on the existence of certain conditions and that the Company Law Board's decision was arbitrary and contrary to the materials on record.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court held that the Company Law Board had no jurisdiction under Section 408 of the Companies Act to regulate the petitioner's schemes in view of the RBI's directions. The impugned order dated November 13, 1987, was declared illegal and void. The writ application succeeded, and the show-cause notice dated March 13, 1987, and the impugned order dated November 13, 1987, were canceled. There was no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 349
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of the amount due from the respondents for goods supplied.
  2. Entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the due amount and the applicable rate.
  3. Verification of whether the price of the goods supplied was duly paid by the respondents.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The petitioners filed a petition under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking recovery of Rs. 44,021.37. Petitioner No. 1 was acquired by petitioner No. 2 under the Maruti Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The dispute arose from business transactions between the petitioners and the respondents dating back to 1975, resulting in a credit balance of Rs. 25,743.84 in favor of the petitioners. The respondents, a partnership concern, contested the claim, alleging that bills were not properly credited and payments were made promptly within thirty days of goods delivery. The court framed three key issues for determination based on the parties' contentions.
  
  The petitioners presented PW-1, an ex-accounts officer, who testified to the ledger entries supporting the amount due from the respondents. In contrast, RW-1, a witness for the respondents, claimed that payments were made promptly upon goods inspection. However, the court noted discrepancies in the respondents' defense, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or cross-examination to substantiate their claims. The court emphasized the importance of confronting witnesses with relevant evidence during cross-examination to challenge their testimony effectively.
  
  Regarding the first issue, the court relied on the petitioner's statement and upheld the entries in the account books as sufficient evidence to establish the amount due from the respondents. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that the plaintiff's statement on oath could support entries in account books to fix liability. Consequently, the court found in favor of the petitioners, concluding that Rs. 25,743.84 was due from the respondents for the goods supplied.
  
  On the second issue, the court invoked section 61(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, to award interest at 9% per annum on the due amount from the date it fell due until payment. This decision was based on the discretion granted to courts to determine interest rates in such cases.
  
  Lastly, the court addressed the third issue, noting the lack of substantial evidence from the respondents to refute the amount due. Consequently, the court ruled against the respondents on this issue. Ultimately, a decree was passed in favor of the petitioners for the recovery of Rs. 25,743.84 along with interest at 9% per annum from the due date until payment, with costs awarded to the petitioners.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 348
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Appointment of an administrator or special officer.
  2. Orders of injunction against the defendants.
  3. Validity and legality of the transfer and non-registration of shares.
  4. Alleged mismanagement and oppression by the company's management.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Appointment of an Administrator/Special Officer
  The plaintiffs requested the appointment of an administrator or special officer over the defendant-company, Luxmi Tea Co. Ltd., to manage its affairs. The court appointed Mr. Chandan Kumar Banerji, a retired judge, as the special officer. The management of the company will be conducted by a board consisting of two representatives from each side headed by the special officer. The company is restrained from holding any general meetings until further orders, and the special officer is tasked with auditing the accounts from April 1, 1985, onwards.
  
  Issue 2: Orders of Injunction
  The plaintiffs sought various injunctions, including restraining the defendants from acting as directors or secretary, dealing with the company's assets, and using company funds for defending pending proceedings u/s 155 of the Companies Act. The court confirmed the existing interim orders and issued an order in terms of prayer (g) of the notice of motion.
  
  Issue 3: Validity and Legality of Share Transfers
  The court examined the disputes regarding the transfer and non-registration of shares. It was found that many transfers were improperly executed, with allegations of antedating and unauthorized issuance of duplicate share certificates. The court noted that the company and its board took a partisan attitude in approving transfers, often favoring the current management led by Dipankar Chatterjee. The court emphasized that the legality and validity of these transfers could not be finally decided at this stage and required further investigation.
  
  Issue 4: Alleged Mismanagement and Oppression
  The plaintiffs alleged mismanagement and oppression by the current management, citing deteriorating working results and suspicious transactions. The court found prima facie evidence supporting these allegations, including the manipulation of share transfers and non-disclosure of financial results. The court concluded that the current board's conduct did not inspire confidence and justified their supersession.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the application, superseding the current board of directors and appointing a special officer to manage the company. The court emphasized the need for further investigation into the allegations of improper share transfers and mismanagement. The suit was expedited, and the special officer was directed to get the accounts audited by an independent auditor.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 333
  

  Whether the first meeting of the corporation called for that day at 2.45 p.m. by the Municipal Commissioner, respondent No. 9, who presided over the meeting, was adjourned for the day or adjourned sine die and, therefore, had to be called on some subsequent date to be fixed by him and thus necessitated the giving of seven days' clear notice as required by rule 1(h), Chapter II of the Rules framed under section 453 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949?

  Held that:- Appeal dismissed. On an overall view of the facts and circumstances, no hesitation in upholding the finding that the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation fixed by the Municipal Commissioner for May 6, 1988, was not "adjourned for the day" or "adjourned sine di" but had only been put off to a later hour, i.e., the proceedings had only been suspended, to be re-commenced when peace and order were restored.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 332
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Liability of directors for default, negligence, and misfeasance under Section 58A of the Companies Act and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975.
  2. Distinction in liability between full-time and part-time directors.
  3. Applicability of Section 633 of the Companies Act for relief from criminal proceedings.
  4. Impact of special circumstances, such as strikes and economic strain, on the directors' liability.
  
  Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Liability of Directors for Default, Negligence, and Misfeasance:
  The directors of Amar Dye-Chem Ltd. (in liquidation) sought relief from criminal proceedings for defaults under Section 58A of the Companies Act and the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The admitted facts included the company's acceptance and renewal of deposits exceeding permissible limits, non-repayment of deposits, and violation of Section 58A. The court emphasized that Section 58A enacts stringent provisions regarding the acceptance of deposits to protect the investing public, requiring strict compliance from the company's officers.
  
  2. Distinction in Liability Between Full-Time and Part-Time Directors:
  The court examined whether the law distinguishes between full-time and part-time directors regarding liability. It was held that the Companies Act makes no such distinction. Section 2(30) defines "Officer" to include any director, without differentiating based on their time commitment. The general powers of the board under Section 291, the requirement for board meetings under Section 285, and the signing of balance sheets under Section 215 apply equally to all directors. The court concluded that all directors, irrespective of their full-time or part-time status, share equal responsibility and liability.
  
  3. Applicability of Section 633 of the Companies Act for Relief from Criminal Proceedings:
  The court considered whether the directors acted "honestly and reasonably" under Section 633 to be relieved from liability. The directors argued that special circumstances, such as strikes and economic strain, justified their actions. However, the court found no evidence that the directors were unaware of the excess deposits. The meetings of the board and the annual general meetings provided ample opportunity for all directors to be aware of the company's financial status. The court held that the acceptance and renewal of deposits without the company's sanction and in violation of the permissible limits were not reasonable actions.
  
  4. Impact of Special Circumstances on Directors' Liability:
  The directors cited a strike and "go slow" by workers as special circumstances that strained the company's finances, leading to the acceptance of deposits. The court noted that these circumstances ended by early 1983, yet the violations continued thereafter. The court found no justification for accepting new deposits or renewing old ones without the company's sanction, especially when the company was unable to repay existing deposits. The directors' actions were not considered reasonable under the circumstances.
  
  Judgment:
  1. Company Petitions Nos. 502 of 1984 and 506 of 1984 were dismissed, and the petitioners were ordered to pay costs to the Official Liquidator and the Regional Director of the Company Law Board.
  2. Company Petitions Nos. 526 of 1984, 527 of 1984, 528 of 1984, 529 of 1984, and 530 of 1984 were granted relief from criminal proceedings as they were part-time directors and there was no evidence of their active involvement in the defaults.
  3. Company Applications Nos. 331 of 1984, 332 of 1984, 333 of 1984, 334 of 1984, and 335 of 1984 had no orders passed on them.
  4. The order was stayed for three weeks.
  
  The court's decision highlighted the equal liability of all directors under the Companies Act, regardless of their full-time or part-time status, and emphasized the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions to protect the interests of the investing public.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 331
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Barred by limitation
  2. Proper resolution by the board of directors for making the call
  3. Exclusion of certain periods under Section 458A of the Companies Act
  4. Merits of the respondents' contentions regarding unpaid call amounts
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Barred by Limitation:
  The respondents contended that the claims were barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period from the date of the winding-up order. The winding-up commenced on February 20, 1981, and the order was passed on March 23, 1982. The claims were filed on April 7, 1987. The liquidator argued that under Section 458A of the Companies Act, the period of pendency of the winding-up petition (1 year, 1 month, and 2 days) and one year following the winding-up order should be excluded from the limitation period. This exclusion would extend the last date for filing the claims to April 24, 1987. The court agreed with this interpretation, holding that the liquidator is entitled to add both periods specified in Section 458A to the three-year period prescribed in Article 137. Thus, the claims were not barred by limitation.
  
  2. Proper Resolution by the Board of Directors for Making the Call:
  The respondents argued that there was no proper resolution by the board of directors for making the call. Specifically, they contended that the calls made on February 12, 1977, and April 5, 1977, were suspicious and lacked proper resolutions. The court examined the minutes of the board meetings and found that the resolutions were indeed passed, although there were some corrections in the minutes book. The court noted that one of the respondents, who was a director, attended several board meetings where these resolutions were passed but did not testify to explain the discrepancies. Therefore, the court rejected the respondents' contention.
  
  3. Exclusion of Certain Periods under Section 458A of the Companies Act:
  Section 458A of the Companies Act allows for the exclusion of the period from the commencement of the winding-up to the date of the winding-up order and one year immediately following the winding-up order in computing the period of limitation. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma and the Delhi High Court's decision in Faridabad Cold Storage v. Official Liquidator of Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P.) Ltd., to support the interpretation that both periods should be excluded. Thus, the court held that the liquidator was entitled to add these periods to the three-year limitation period under Article 137.
  
  4. Merits of the Respondents' Contentions Regarding Unpaid Call Amounts:
  On the merits, the respondents contended that they had already remitted substantial amounts without proper calls and that the calls made were subsequently canceled. The court examined the share ledgers and minutes of the board meetings and found that the respondents had indeed remitted amounts but were still liable for the unpaid call amounts. The court noted that the respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of improper calls and cancellations. Therefore, the court decreed the claims for the respective principal amounts together with interest at six percent per annum from the date of filing the claim (April 7, 1987) until the date of payment, along with costs.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the claims were not barred by limitation, the resolutions for making the calls were proper, and the liquidator was entitled to exclude the specified periods under Section 458A of the Companies Act. On the merits, the respondents' contentions were not accepted, and the claims were decreed with interest and costs.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 315
  
  The appeal was against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in a refund claim case. The Collector (Appeals) directed the refund amount to be determined based on a Tribunal's order in other proceedings. The Department appealed against this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, stating that no legal basis was provided for setting aside the Collector (Appeals) order. The Department was advised to file an appeal in the Supreme Court if they wished to challenge the decision further. The Tribunal found no reason to grant the Department's plea and dismissed the appeal.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 313
  
  Issues:
  Classification of steel balls under the new Central Excise Tariff - Heading 84.82 vs. Heading 87.12 read with Heading 87.14 - Appellants' plea for reclassification - Interpretation of Note 6 of Chapter 84 - Appellants' alternate plea regarding polishing standards - Request for remand to present fresh evidence - Negligence in defense before lower authorities - Implications for the industry - Decision on remand to Assistant Collector.
  
  Analysis:
  The dispute in this appeal revolves around the classification of steel balls under the new Central Excise Tariff, specifically whether they should be categorized under Heading 84.82 or Heading 87.12 read with Heading 87.14. The lower authorities classified the goods under Heading 84.82 based on Note 6 to Chapter 84, which deals with the classification of polished steel balls. The appellants argue for reclassification as parts of cycles under Heading 87.12, supported by exemption notifications that would entitle them to nil rate of duty. The appellants contend that their steel balls do not meet the polishing standard specified in Note 6, suggesting classification under Heading 73.26 instead, which would still qualify for nil rate of duty under an exemption notification. The appellants raised this alternate plea for the first time during the appeal, supported by new evidence, including correspondence, affidavits, and expert opinions, not presented before the lower authorities. They request a remand to the Assistant Collector to consider this new plea and evidence.
  
  The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise opposed the appellants' request for remand, arguing that the appellants had sufficient opportunity to present their case before the Assistant Collector. The Joint Commissioner highlighted that the Assistant Collector had specifically inquired about the polishing and size specifications of the steel balls during the proceedings, to which the appellants did not provide adequate responses. The Joint Commissioner also pointed out that the steel balls in question were likely made of high carbon Chromium Steel and were presumed to be polished bearing grade balls. The appellants acknowledged their negligence in not presenting a proper defense before the lower authorities, attributing it to their focus on a previous judgment related to the old tariff. They emphasized the importance of addressing the new issue of polishing standards due to its significant implications for the steel ball manufacturers and the bicycle industry.
  
  Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' negligence in defending their case but recognized the importance and implications of the new issue raised regarding the polishing standards of the steel balls. Despite typically not allowing new pleas and fresh evidence at this stage, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to address the matter promptly due to its industry-wide impact. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision. This remand would enable both parties to present evidence on the new plea, allowing the Assistant Collector to conduct necessary verifications and inquiries. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Assistant Collector to resolve the classification issue effectively.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 312
  
  Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 dated 24-04-1986 for duty exemption on excisable goods manufactured for repair/maintenance within a factory.
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 for exemption eligibility
  The ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that the goods manufactured within various workshops in the factory for repair and maintenance should be eligible for exemption as per Notification No. 281/86. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) denied the exemption, stating that the goods were not manufactured in a workshop within the factory. The appellants claimed that the exemption should be accorded to them based on their manufacturing activities prior to the new Central Excise Tariff. The notification does not specify the size or type of workshop, only requiring excisable goods manufactured within a workshop for repair/maintenance. The Tribunal held that the intent of the notification should be based on the plain terms, and the exemption cannot be denied based on assumptions beyond the notification's wording.
  
  Issue 2: Definition of "factory" and "workshop" under Central Excises Act
  The Respondent argued that the exemption under Notification No. 281/86 applies only to goods manufactured in a workshop within a factory, not in the entire factory. Referring to the definition of "factory" under Section 2(e) of the Central Excises Act, the Respondent contended that a workshop is a place where manual or industrial work is carried out. The Respondent cited legal judgments emphasizing strict interpretation of taxing statutes and notifications. The appellant countered that the size of the workshop should not be a determining factor for exemption eligibility, as long as excisable goods are manufactured within a workshop for repair and maintenance purposes.
  
  Issue 3: Precedents and interpretation of notifications
  The Tribunal considered previous judgments and legal principles related to interpreting notifications under taxing statutes. It emphasized that the intent of the law should be clear and unambiguous, without relying on assumed intentions of the authorities. The Tribunal highlighted that the exemption should not be construed in a manner that defeats its purpose, especially considering the previous exemption under Notification No. 118/75. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal is maintainable and allowed based on the clear intent of the law regarding the exemption eligibility under Notification No. 281/86.
  
  This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, clarified the interpretation of Notification No. 281/86 for duty exemption on excisable goods manufactured within a factory for repair and maintenance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the plain terms of the notification and the clear intent of the law in such matters.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 310
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Shortfall in turnover.
  2. Contravention of the Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act.
  3. Applicability of Ministry's Circular dated 7-10-1969.
  4. Rejection of renewal application and cancellation of the licence during the pendency of appeals.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Shortfall in Turnover:
  
  The appellant was holding a gold dealer's licence and applied for its renewal. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, issued a show cause notice citing the appellant's failure to meet the minimum turnover requirement under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The appellant contended that the shortfall of 2.73 grams was due to communal disturbances in Ahmedabad during 1984-85 and legal issues he faced in 1982-83. The Collector rejected this explanation, stating that the appellant did not provide sufficient reasons for the shortfall and that the turnover criterion was not met. The Tribunal found the Collector's reasoning subjective and not based on objective verification of the disturbances' impact on business. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's finding on this issue.
  
  2. Contravention of the Gold (Control) Act and Customs Act:
  
  The show cause notice also cited the appellant's penalization under Section 112 of the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act as grounds for rejecting the renewal application and cancelling the licence. The appellant argued that these penalties were related to a single transaction and that appeals against these penalties were pending. The Collector dismissed this argument, stating that the Government circulars were only for departmental guidance and not binding. The Tribunal, however, noted that the appellant's appeals were not decided on merits but were rejected due to non-payment of a deposit. It also observed that other gold dealers involved in similar allegations had their appeals allowed on merits. The Tribunal held that for a single act of contravention, especially in the absence of criminal prosecution, drastic actions like denial of renewal and cancellation of the licence were not justified.
  
  3. Applicability of Ministry's Circular dated 7-10-1969:
  
  The appellant argued that the Ministry's Circular dated 7-10-1969, which advised against invoking cancellation provisions for minor contraventions, should have been considered. The Collector dismissed this, stating that the circular was not binding on the trade. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that administrative instructions from the Government, while not legally binding, should be given due consideration to ensure uniformity and fairness in administrative actions. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant that the circular's guidance should be followed, particularly when the contravention was minor and the appeal against the penalty was pending.
  
  4. Rejection of Renewal Application and Cancellation of the Licence During the Pendency of Appeals:
  
  The Tribunal examined whether the licensing authority should await the final outcome of appeals before taking drastic actions like cancellation or non-renewal of licences. It referred to several precedents where it was held that the licensing authority should not deny renewal or cancel a licence based on penalties that were under appeal. The Tribunal noted that the licensing provisions should be applied cautiously, especially when the appellant had brought the pendency of appeals to the authority's notice. It concluded that the licensing authority should have awaited the appeal's outcome before deciding on the renewal and cancellation.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector's order. It emphasized that the appellant's explanations for the turnover shortfall were not objectively considered and that the penalties under appeal should not have led to immediate cancellation or denial of renewal. The Tribunal also stressed the need to consider Government circulars and the pendency of appeals before taking drastic administrative actions.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 309
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of ITC policy for 1985-88 regarding import of synthetic rags under OGL.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved 25 appeals with a common issue regarding the interpretation of the Import Trade Control (ITC) policy for 1985-88 concerning the importation of synthetic rags under Open General License (OGL). The appellants imported synthetic rags described as "premutilated synthetic rags" or "completely premutilated synthetic rags" in the Bill of Entry, claiming clearance under OGL as per the policy. The specific issue revolved around whether the imported goods met the condition of being "completely premutilated" as required by the policy.
  
  The ITC policy for 1985-88 listed woollen rags/synthetic rags under Sl. No. 418, with a condition stating that import would be allowed only if the rags were in a completely premutilated form. The Customs authorities, based on examination reports, found that the imported synthetic rags were not completely premutilated as they consisted of garments cut into 2, 3, or 4 pieces, deemed restichable and retrievable as fabrics. The Customs contended that the goods did not meet the condition of complete premutilation as per the policy, leading to a dispute with the importers.
  
  The appellants argued that the ITC policy did not define what constituted "completely premutilated," and cited previous Tribunal judgments in similar cases where the benefit was given to importers due to the lack of a clear standard for mutilation. The Tribunal noted that in the absence of a defined test for complete mutilation in the policy, the benefit should be in favor of the importers. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the importance of defining terms to avoid confusion regarding tax liabilities.
  
  The Tribunal further analyzed examination reports and Customs findings, concluding that the goods were indeed rags but not completely mutilated as claimed by Customs. The Tribunal disagreed with the Customs' assessment that the goods were retrievable and restitchable, emphasizing the lack of an identifiable test for complete mutilation. The Tribunal also highlighted that if further mutilation was deemed necessary, Customs could have ordered it, but since the goods were no longer available, confiscation based on incomplete mutilation was not justified.
  
  In a similar case involving woollen rags, the Tribunal referred to a previous order where it was observed that the Import Policy required complete premutilation for woollen rags, but the extent of mutilation was not clearly defined. The Tribunal reiterated that the lack of a defined standard for mutilation in the policy meant that the goods could be released to the importers after proper mutilation, as directed by Customs.
  
  Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellants' arguments, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. The Tribunal granted Customs the liberty to order further mutilation if the goods were still under Customs control, maintaining consistency with previous judgments on the issue.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment focused on the interpretation of the ITC policy for 1985-88 regarding the importation of synthetic rags under OGL, emphasizing the importance of a clear standard for complete premutilation to avoid ambiguity and ensure fair treatment of importers based on established guidelines.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 306
  
  Issues:
  - Interpretation of canalised items under Policy AM-83
  - Confiscation and redemption of goods by Customs authorities
  - Imposition of additional customs duty (CVD)
  - Clarification by State Trading Corporation on canalisation status
  - Requirement of drug license for manufacturing in India
  - Conduct of Customs in clearing similar imports without objection
  
  Interpretation of Canalised Items under Policy AM-83:
  The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods as canalised items under Policy AM-83. The Customs objected to the clearance of 12 drums of vitamins imported by the appellants, citing that only the canalising agency was eligible to import such goods. The authorities relied on Appendix 9 of the policy to classify the items as canalised, despite the appellants arguing that the goods were not drugs but substances containing drugs. The judges analyzed the specific entries in Appendix 9 and concluded that the goods did not qualify as drugs as per the policy's definition of canalised items.
  
  Confiscation and Redemption of Goods by Customs Authorities:
  The Asstt. Collector of Customs had initially ordered the confiscation of the imported goods but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 36,000. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appellants filing the current appeal. The judges reviewed the confiscation order and determined that the goods did not meet the criteria for canalised items under Policy AM-83, thereby setting aside the confiscation and fine imposed by the authorities.
  
  Imposition of Additional Customs Duty (CVD):
  One of the key arguments presented by the appellants was the imposition of additional customs duty (CVD) by the Customs authorities, indicating that the imported goods were not classified as drugs. The judges noted that drugs were exempted from CVD as per Notification No. 234/82-C.E., further supporting the appellants' claim that the goods were not drugs. This discrepancy in the imposition of CVD played a crucial role in the decision to overturn the lower authorities' orders.
  
  Clarification by State Trading Corporation on Canalisation Status:
  The State Trading Corporation (STC) had issued a clarification stating that they were not importing the specific goods in question as they were de-canalised items. Although the appellants did not provide a copy of the letter seeking clarification from STC, the judges considered this clarification along with the absence of objections from Customs in clearing similar imports. This lack of objection and the STC's clarification supported the appellants' argument that the goods were not canalised during the relevant policy period.
  
  Requirement of Drug License for Manufacturing in India:
  The appellants highlighted that no drug license was required for manufacturing the imported goods in India, suggesting that the goods were not drugs. This argument, coupled with the Customs' conduct in clearing similar imports without objection, further strengthened the appellants' position that the goods were not canalised items under Policy AM-83.
  
  Conduct of Customs in Clearing Similar Imports without Objection:
  The judges considered the consistent conduct of the Customs authorities in clearing identical goods imported by others without raising any objections. This pattern of clearance without objection supported the appellants' contention that the goods were not canalised items as claimed by the authorities. The judges ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation and fine imposed by the Customs authorities and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 304
  
  Issues:
  Delay in filing the appeal for customs duty exemption based on the classification of imported goods under Notification No. 388/76.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal
  The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin against the orders of Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras. There was a delay of one day in filing the appeal beyond the 3-month period, which was explained as transit delay. The Departmental Representative requested condonation of the delay, which was not objected by the Advocate for the Respondents. The Tribunal, therefore, condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
  
  Issue 2: Classification of imported goods
  The case revolved around the classification of imported goods described as Cupro Bomberg Staple fibre (Viscose Staple fibre) under Notification No. 388/76 for customs duty exemption. The Cochin Customs House identified the goods as synthetic staple fibre of Cellulose origin, other than polynosic and viscose, denying the exemption. However, the Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal, considering the goods as regenerated cellulose produced by the cupromonium process, akin to viscose fibres. The Department argued that the cupromonium fibre was covered under a different notification and could not be granted retrospective benefits.
  
  Issue 3: Comparison of viscose and cupromonium fibres
  The Advocate for the Respondents contended that both viscose and cupromonium fibres were similar in chemical composition and nature. However, the Tribunal observed that despite both being regenerated cellulose, they were distinct varieties of rayon fibres. The Textile Commissioner's certificate confirmed the cupromonium fibre as a type of viscose fibre, but differences in manufacturing processes and performance characteristics distinguished the two types.
  
  Issue 4: Manufacturer's literature and quality certificate
  The manufacturer's literature highlighted structural and performance differences between viscose and cupro rayon fibres. The quality certificate stated that cupro rayon belonged to the same family as viscose fibres but did not claim they were identical. The Tribunal concluded that the goods imported were not the same as viscose fibres, and the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 388/76 could not be granted retrospectively.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal set aside the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, determining that the goods imported were not eligible for the customs duty exemption under Notification No. 388/76. The judgment emphasized the distinctions between viscose and cupromonium fibres based on manufacturing processes and performance characteristics, highlighting that the benefit of exemption could not be extended retrospectively.

  ---

• 1988 (7) TMI 303
  
  Issues: Classification of special components manufactured as per buyer's specifications under Central Excise Tariff Item 52 or Item 68.
  
  In this case, the appellants argued that certain special components manufactured as per the specifications of the buyer, M/s. B.E.M.L., K.G.F., for use in mining and project machinery should be classified under the residuary Item No. 68 CET. The department, however, contended that these components, although manufactured as per buyer's specifications, are ultimately used as fasteners and should be assessed under Tariff Item 52. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the classification under Tariff Item 52 based on the absence of evidence regarding the specific functions of the parts beyond fastening. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence explaining the essential functions of the components and emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the department to establish a different classification resulting in a higher duty rate. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that a specific entry should always be preferred over a general entry for classification purposes.
  
  The Tribunal also referenced previous decisions involving classification of nuts and bolts used as fasteners, emphasizing that in cases where the products had other functional utilities beyond fastening, classification under Tariff Item 52 was deemed appropriate. However, in the present case, where the components were specifically manufactured as parts of machinery as per buyer's specifications, the Tribunal found that classification under Tariff Item 68 was more suitable. The Tribunal distinguished this case from previous cases where the products were not manufactured as per buyer's specifications for use in specific machinery.
  
  Furthermore, the Tribunal cited the decision in a previous case where goods manufactured as per specific design and function were classified based on their role in the machinery they were intended for. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering the design and specifications of the items in determining their classification. The Tribunal also referenced a High Court decision where products specifically manufactured for assembly in motor cycles were considered integral parts of the machinery rather than mere bolts and nuts. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the special components in question should be classified as component parts of projects and mining machinery under Central Excise Tariff Item 68, overturning the lower authority's classification under Tariff Item 52.
  
  In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the classification of the special components as per the appellants' claim under Central Excise Tariff Item 68.

  ---

1234567........ 13