Allahabad Court September 1990 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.
Ravindra and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-06-1990
Reported in: 1991(52)ELT361(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-1-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Fatehgarh, rejecting the petitioner's application for refund, on the ground that his claim is barred by the provisions of Section 11(B) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.2. The petitioner manufactures chewing tobacco. According to him it is unmanufactured tobacco. By an order dated 5-12-1985, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad classified it as manufactured Branded Chewing Tobacco, dutiable under the Act at the rate prescribed under Notification No. 35/79 CE, dated 1st March, 1989. Though this order of the Assistant Collector dated 5-12-1985 was an appealable order, the petitioner did not file an appeal against the same.3. It appears that in certain seizure proceedings, the same very question was raised. According to the petitioner the orders passed in the said seizure proceedings upheld the petitioner's contention that the...
Kohinoor Cane Crusher Vs. Additional Secretary, Govt. of India
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: 1992(39)ECC144; 1991LC201(Allahabad); 1991(52)ELT360(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. The validity of order passed by Central Government, under Section 36(2) of the Central Excise Act, as it then stood, is challenged herein. The petitioner is a manufacturer engaged in production of Khandsari Sugar. He filed a refund claim for a sum of about Rs. 9,000/- pertaining to period 1-3-1975. It was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise by his order dated 28-10-1977. The petitioner says that he did not receive a copy of the said order and that only much later he obtained a duplicate copy of the said order on 4-4-1978 and on that basis filed appeal on 17-4-1978. Accepting these facts and particularly in the light of the circumstance that the case records did not contain the acknowledgement of the party in token of having received the adjudication order, the Appellate Collector treated the appeal in time, examined it on merits and allowed the refund claim by his order dated 19-9-1978. This order was revised by the Central Government under the...
Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-04-1990
Reported in: 1990LC391(Allahabad); 1991(52)ELT359(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against an assessment-memorandum (endorsement) made by the Superintendent, Central Excise on 27-8-1987 on the monthly extract of PLA/RG 23 filed by the petitioner for the period May 1986 to July 1987. One of the assessment memorandums, which is subject matter of the dispute in this matter runs:'The assessee has paid the duty on the above goods correctly except that the credit taken of Liquid Oxygen is disallowed as it was not declared as input. The Factory is directed to debit Rs. 13213.20 from RG-23 or from PLA within 10 days of the receipt of RT-12 under Rule 57-I of C.E. Rules, 1944'.2. A reading of the impugned endorsement shows that it has been made under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 57-I specifically provides that before disallowing any ocredit of duty paid and an input taken by a manufacturer, the proper officer shall give a show cause notice. It does not appear in this case that any such show ca...
Beni Ram Mool Chand and anr. Vs. Tax Recovery Officer and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: [1991]187ITR601(All)
1. The petitioners have sought issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice (annexure 1), order of attachment (annexure 2A) and letters dated February 8, 1990 (annexure 4) and February 14, 1990 (annexure 6), to the writ petition and further for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from initiating and continuing with the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the orders passed under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as well as making the proclamation of sale against the petitioners.2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondents at the stage of admission. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders and letters on a number of grounds. According to the petitioners, the recovery certificate dated February 8, 1947, having been sent directly by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Kanpur, to the Collector, Fatehgarh, is against the provisions of law and no interest or penalty can be charged and recovered under the Indian Income-tax Act, 192...
Muzaffarnagar Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-03-1990
Reported in: [1991]190ITR372(All)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the Commissioner dated August 28, 1987, under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act.2. The petitioner is a public limited company. For the assessment year 1984-1985, it did not file an estimate of advance tax which ought to have been filed on or before June 15, 1983. The petitioner filed the return for the assessment year 1984-85 on May 26, 1984, disclosing a substantial loss. Indeed, the petitioner purported to carry forward the losses incurred in the previous years. The petitioner was claiming losses because he was claiming the benefit of Section 80J on borrowed capital.3. In 1975, the Calcutta High Court held that the said benefit should be computed even on borrowed capital. But, in 1980, Section 80J was amended with retrospective effect clarifying that the said benefit shall not be available on borrowed capital. The validity of the said amendment and the question whether the said benefit can be computed even on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›