Chennai Court June 1986 Judgments
Mars Exports Vs. Secretary to Ministry of Commerce and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-27-1986
Reported in: 1988(17)ECC172; 1987(30)ELT257(Mad)
ORDER1. As both writ petitions are connected, a common judgment is being rendered. 2. The petitioner applied for import licence on 14-2-1981. The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports (second respondent) issued the Advance Licence subject to certain conditions, about which I shall refer a little later, on 22-5-1982. On the strength of the issuance of the advance licence, the petitioner was issued Duty Exemption entitlement Certificate on 22-5-1982. It is thereafter petitioner placed orders with Messrs Mathews (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., for supply of 26 Metric Tonne of copper wire scrap valued at Rs. 4,73,747. The cargo was loaded from Singapore on 12-8-1982, and the vessel carrying the cargo arrived at Madras Port on 19-8-1982. The consignment was cleared on 19-10-1982. Out of 26 tonnes, 7.980 tonnes were removed from the Port itself and sent to the manufacturers, and the remaining 18.020 tonnes were warehoused with the Central Warehousing Corporation, Tondiarpet. The goods were pledged ...
Tag this Judgment!Deccan Sugar and Abkhari Co. Ltd., Madras Vs. U.O.i. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-26-1986
Reported in: 1987(12)ECC226; 1987(12)LC892(Madras); 1986(26)ELT209(Mad)
ORDER1. By order dated 10-2-1977, the third-respondent demanded of the petitioner duty on certain quantity of bagasse used as fuel during the period between 1-3-1975 and 29-4-1975. The petitioner would contend that bagasse is not a manufactured product so as to be an excisable good under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Act 1 of 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The petitioner would also claim exemption under Notification No. 58 of 1975, dated 1-3-1975 as amended by Notification No. 77 of 1975, dated 6-3-1975, on the ground that bagasse must be characterised only as on intermediate goods or component part of any goods. Both these contentions were not accepted by the third-respondent. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the second-respondent and that was also not fruitful. There was a further revision to the first-respondent and that was rejected by the order dated 11-4-1979, impugned in this Writ Petition. 2. Mr. K. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the peti...
Tag this Judgment!S.P.S. Jayaram and Co. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Prev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC265; 1987(12)LC469(Madras); 1987(28)ELT20(Mad)
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Tuesday the 8th, Monday the 15th, Tuesday the 16th, Thursday the 17th, Wednesday the 23rd, Monday the 28th and Wednesday the 30th days of April, 1986 and Friday 2nd day of May, 1986 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court dated 19.3.1986 and made herein, and the counter and Reply affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the prayer aforesaid comprised in the return of respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. U.N.R. Rao for M/s. C. David, R. Vijayandran and Miss Sathya Rao, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. K. Jothi, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, the Court made the following order :- The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business under the name and style of S.P.S. Jayaram & Company manufacturing 'Gopal Tooth Powder'. It has come forward with this proceeding under...
Tag this Judgment!Onward Trading Co. Vs. Tahsildar, Fort Tondiarpet, Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: AIR1988Mad254; [1987]66STC326(Mad)
ORDER1. The petitioner is facing revenue recovery proceedings in the State of Tamil Nadu for arrears of sales tax, which became due in the State of Maharashtra. The notice impugned is that of the first respondent, dt 9-1-1980 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of sales tax dues referred to above. Mr. K. Ramagopal learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge three points, covering interference in writ jurisdiction. The first point is for the sales tax arrears which became due in the State of Maharashtra the process under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (,Act 1 of 1890) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', cannot be initiated here in the State of Tamil Nadu. Such a contention was raised and was repelled in Tarachand v. Tahsildar ( 1983) 52 STC 324. In view of the above pronouncement, I am not able to sustain this contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Secondly, learned counsel would submit that the certificate for recovery under the Act has been admi...
Tag this Judgment!D. Dorairaj Vs. the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (South ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-25-1986
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC130
Maheswaran, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order Of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board in Appeal No. 1123 of 1977 confirming the order of the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, finding the appellant guilty under Section 19(1)(e) and Section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with Central Government notification dated 25-9-1998 and Section 9 Of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with the said notification and also against the award of consolidated penalty of Rs. 5,800.2. The gravamen of the charge is (1) that the appellant has been holding shares Worth about U.S. $ 160 in M/s. Bethleham Steel Corporation, U.S.A. without the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank Of India and thereby has violated the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (2) that he Was owning travellers' cheques worth U.S. $ 150 and has failed to offer the same to an authorised dealer in foreign...
Tag this Judgment!G. Shenbagammal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)368; [1986]162ITR445(Mad)
1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, under the provisions of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, for the determination ofjthe principal value of the estate of deceased, K. C. A. D. Gnanagiri Nadar, who died on June 21, 1973, his widow, the accountable person, claimed that her maintenance allowance and the estate duty payable on the principal value of the estate should be allowed as permissible deductions while computing the dutiable estate of the deceased. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Madurai, negatived these claims. On appeal, the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty concurred with the views of the Assistant Controller, relying upon a decision to the Tribunal in Asst. CED v. N. Sundareswaramurthy (E. D. A. No. 22 (MDS)/1972-73 dated April, 1975) and on In re Mrs. Constance Lubeck and V. Pramila v. CED [1975] 99 ITR 221 (Kar). Onfurther appeal, the Tribunal held that the claim for deduction of maintenance made by the accountable person had been rightly negatived. By a ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ganesan Vs. the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Depa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ128
M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.1. The appellant, who is admittedly in the employment of the railway administration was allotted premises bearing door No. 92, Bazar Road, Mylapore, Madras 4, as residential accommodation on a rent of Ra. 50. The present respondent No. 3 who is the landlady, purchased the premises in the occupation of the appellant as well as another adjacent premises bearing door No. 93, Bazar Road, Madras k, on 1st June, 1981.2. Within six months, on 30th December, 1981, the landlady applied to the Authorised Officer under Section 3A of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) that she bona fide required the premises in question for her own occupation. It is not very clear as to whether the copy of this application which is required to be made under Rule 6 of the Rules giving the details prescribed therein, was issued to the allottee. But the record discloses that he had addressed a copy of the representation wh...
Tag this Judgment!K. Eapen Jacob Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)55CTR(Mad)398; [1987]166ITR199(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The following three questions have been referred at the instance of the assesses under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 90,500 received by the assessee was taxable as revenue receipt for the assessment year 1973-74 or was a capital receipt in its entirety? 2. Whether, in the alternative, the sum of Rs. 90,500 could be regarded as partially representing the profit derived from the business of the partnership until the date of the compromise and partially to the extent of the balance as relatable to the compensation and, if so, whether the compensation amount could be fixed at Rs. 30,500 and the balance at Rs. 60,000 as a matter of fact ?' 3. Even if it is held that the sum of Rs. 60,000 or any other portion out of the amount of Rs. 90,500 is regarded as arising on revenue account, whether it is proper to regard this entire amount as accruing or arising within one year, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajathy Ammal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: (1986)56CTR(Mad)262; [1987]164ITR605(Mad)
1. The following two questions have been referred in pursuance of the directions of this court :"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the applicant as an individual in respect of the property inherited by her husband was valid in law after the adoption of the minor child ?2. Whether the adoption of the son does not alter the character of the properties from that of individual property to that of joint family property ?"2. One Ramalingam Chettiar died intestate in October, 1962, leaving behind him his widow Rajathy Ammal, the assessee in this case, as his sole heir. On December 14, 1969, the widow adopted a minor child, Ashok. The properties in question originally belonged to the deceased, Ramalingam Chettiar, he having obtained the same under a family partition. For the Assessment year 1970-71, the assessee submitted a return under the Wealth-tax Act and claimed the properties as joint family properties in view of the adoption of the minor ch...
Tag this Judgment!The Management of Blue Star and Co. Ltd Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-19-1986
Reported in: (1989)ILLJ233Mad
ORDER1. This writ petition coming on for hearing on Wednesday 1st June 1986 and on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof, the order of the High Court, dated 7th October 1983, and made herein, and the counter and reply-affidavits filed herein and the records relating to the order in T.S.E. Case No. 5/80 dated 19th August 1983 on the file of the 1st Respondent comprised in the return of the respondents to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. R. Narayanasami, for M/s. S. Jayaraman and M. R. Raghavan, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. C. Selvaraj, Government Advocate (Writs) on behalf of the 1st Respondent and of Mr. S. Venkataraman, for M/s. Aiyer and Dolia, Advocates for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following order :- 2. The management is aggrieved against the order passed by the 1st respondent in T.S.E. No. 5 of 1980 under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »