Allahabad Court November 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Harendra Kumar Sharma Vs. the Excise Commissioner
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: 1989(20)ECC103
ORDEROm Prakash, J.1. The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court that the respondent No. 1 be directed to issue a no objection certificate.2. The petitioner owns a khandsari unit, molasses of which is a by-product. For the export of the molasses, the petitioner applied to the Excise Commissioner for obtaining no objection certificate vide application dated 20th August, 1987, Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The petitioner contends that he approached the Excise Commissioner time and again but he failed to dispose of the application dated 20th August, 1987. It is contended that the Excise Commissioner told the petitioner that he had no control over the export of the molasses and hence he cannot grant the no objection certificate.3. The counter affidavit has been filed for the respondent No. 1.4. The question for consideration is whether or not the khandsari unit of the petitioner is governed by the Molasses Control Order, 1961. Section 11 of the order, 1961 says that the provision...
Chandra Pal Singh Vs. the Additional Collector, Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-03-1987
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC303
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The only question for consideration in this petition is if the opposite parties could have refused to release the primary gold seized under Gold (Control) Act even though petitioner had complied with the conditions imposed in adjudication proceedings.2. In adjudication proceedings, it was held that the charge of contravention of provisions of Section 27 of the Act could not be established. But the petitioner was found to have acted in breach of Sections 8(1), 11 and 17. The Additional Collector, therefore, while imposing penalty Rs. 31,000 directed the gold the to be confiscated but gave an option to petitioner to redeem it on payment of Rs. 80,000 within three months. It is not disputed that the petitioner deposited both penalty and the amount determined for redumption within three months. But it was not released as Collector, Central Excise after the adjudication order passed an order that since petitioner was to be prosecuted under Section 85 of the Act where the go...
Sadi Ram Ganga Prasad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)72CTR(All)42; [1988]172ITR129(All); [1987]35TAXMAN480(All)
R.M. Sahai, j.1. In this application filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee, as many as six questions have been raised. From a perusal of the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 256(1) of the Act, it appears, however, that only two questions were raised. As regards the remaining questions, they were orally raised but not pressed. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled to reiterate the same questions and ask this court to ask for a statement of the case on the questions which were given up before the Tribunal.2. As regards the two questions on which the arguments have been advanced on behalf of the assessee, it may be mentioned that as regards question No. 1 regarding deduction of penalty of Rs. 3,000, the matter stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT : 1983ECR1942D(SC) , where it was held by the hon'ble court (headnote):' No expense which was paid by way of penalty for a breach of the law,...
Sharma Trolly Manufacturers Vs. the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: 1988(15)LC287(Allahabad)
Om Prakash, J.1. This is an application under Section 35(g)(4) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 raising as many as ten questions of law. It appears unnecessary to reproduce them. The applicant manufactured motor trailor falling under item No. 34 of the first schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. It was eligible to duty at 6% ad valorem under Notification issued by Excise Department unless it was produced in a factory which employed more than five workers. The applicant did not pay any duty as according to it employed only five workers. In 1977 show-cause notice was issued as from joint statement recorded of workers it was clear that nine persons worked in applicant's factory. The applicant did not appear but in the written reply sent it disputed the correctness that more than five persons worked on basis of attendance register etc. maintained under labour Act and absence of proprietor at time of recording of statement. The Collector, however, did not accept, these as the...
Sri Prakash and ors. Vs. Om Prakash and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-02-1987
Reported in: I(1988)ACC313
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which has been preferred beyond the prescribed time of limitation, Under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Jaunpur, dated 17-5-1980.2. This appeal was presented for reporting on 5-4-1983. It was accompanied with the certified copy of the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, which was applied for on 5-1-83 and was made abailable on 26-3-83. The appellants obtained the certified copy on 2-4-83, and thereafter, as stated above, presented the memorandum of appeal in this Court on 5- 4-83 for reporting.3. For condonation of delay of 963 days the appellants have filed the aforesaid application supported by an affidavit. The appellants have stated in the affidavit that Om Prakash (arrayed as respondent No. 1 in tne appeal), who was their own brother, was given money and papers for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›