Chennai Court January 1997 Judgments
Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. India Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(94)ELT495(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above reference has been made under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 at the instance of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras-34 by referring the following question for our determination and opinion.'When a provisional assessment is made under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on any of the permissible grounds allowed thereunder, is it lawful to hold that the assessment as a whole is provisional so as to save a claim for refund on a different ground from the operation of time bar, or whether the provisionality is restricted to the only ground(s) on the basis of which provisional assessment was initially reported to'. 2. The necessity for the reference arose on account of the view taken by the Tribunal in Appeal No. ED(MAS)403 of 1983, dated 10-8-1984 that the time limit for purposes of limitation under Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 starts from the date of finalisation of the assessment by the Department in view of the fact th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Cus. and C. Ex., Madurai Vs. Samudram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(95)ELT33(Mad)
Raju, J.1. This is reference made to this Court by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench at Madras, at the instance and on an application from the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai, under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the determination of the following question of law :-'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 'addendum order' dated 23-9-1983 passed by the Adjudicating Authority can be considered to be one within the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962'.2. The relevant facts necessary to appreciate the question of law referred to the determination of this Court are that on 12-6-1981 the Customs Authorities have apprehended some of the persons found involved in smuggling activities and as a sequel thereof, search of the house of the respondent herein was also made resulting in the seizure of goods of foreign origin valued in all Rs. 1,31,587.50 in the sha...
Tag this Judgment!Rekhi Road Liners (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1999(113)ELT413(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above reference has been made under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at the instance of the applicant for adjudication and determination of the following questions of law : 1. Whether the appellate Tribunal is not bound by the finding arrived at by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after a full-fledged trial and on the basis of the entire evidence in the case to the effect that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the watches and straps transported by the appellants (accused in the criminal cases) were smuggled goods and by the order of acquittal passed by that Court. 2. Whether it is legally open to the Appellate Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the goods were of foreign origin liable to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Act, on the same facts, evidence and circumstances and find the applicants guilty under Section 112 of the Act, holding that the criminal court has not considered or legally evaluated the evidence and given a finding ...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Stores Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT48(Mad)
Raju, J.1. The above reference has been made under Section 82(B)(3) pursuant to the orders of this Court by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (South Regional Bench) at Madras, by referring the following question for our consideration : 'Whether the order of confiscation and penalty was not vitiated due to the department not carrying out a fuller investigation for the scrutiny of bills and accounts of M/s. D.D. Vernekar and Bros.'. 2. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras, by his order dated 13-5-1983, ordered confiscation of Primary Gold rod and billets weighing 81.400 gms. new gold coins of 8 Nos. weighing 30.150 gms. and ornaments weighing 1038.450 gms. in exercise of his powers under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act. A fine of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of confiscation was levied under Section 73 of the Act and in addition thereto, a penalty of Rs. 6,000/- on M/s. Salem Stores - the applicant and Rs. 1,000/- on Shri Madesh Asari was also levied ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Indian Oxygen Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(92)ELT47(Mad)
Raju, J.1. These two references may be dealt with together since, they involve identical question of law, which has been referred to this Court for determination under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 at the instance of the Collector of Central Excise. The question of law referred to our determination is as follows :'Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of declaration would be the relevant date for the purpose of claims of refund under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.' 2. The common issues involved in these cases is whether the assessees filed their refund claims within time. The Central Excise Authorities approved the base clearance certificates according to which excise clearance has to be calculated after prolonged correspondence, and that excise clearance has started long time back and as a consequence of non-determination of their base clearance they had to pay difference of this excise clearance at normal rate. Thereafter, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex., Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(93)ELT30(Mad)
Rain, J.1. The above reference has been made under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 at the instance of the assessee Manufacturer, by referring the following for our determination and opinion : '1. Whether for the purpose of Notification No. 108/78-C.E., dated 28-4-1978 quantum of exemption is relatable to the quantum of sugar produced during the prescribed period or is dependant on the rate of duty prevailing on the date of removal of such excess production; 2. Whether the benefit of notification is available in respect of that part of the excess production that is exported out of the country; 3. Whether the quantum of exemption is based on the per unit amount specified in the notification or whether the exemption is limited by the actual quantum of duty leviable on the sugar determined in the light of the answer to Question (1) above.' 2. The applicants Sugar Mills are manufacturers of sugar falling under item 1 of Central Excise Tariff. By Central Excise Notific...
Tag this Judgment!Hotel De-broadway, Rep. by Its Managing Partner, M. Jamaludeen Vs. Sno ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997(1)CTC193
ORDERK. Govindarajan, J. 1. The landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller and failed before the Appellate Authority, is the petitioner. The petitioner is a registered firm and is a lessee of the building bearing Door No. 196, Broadway, Madras-1, from one K.T.M.S. Ahmed. The said building consists of ground floor, first and second floors. The petitioner was running a lodging and boarding in the entire first and second floors with a restaurant on the ground floor. Due to some labour problems, the petitioner discontinued the running of the restaurant. Thereafter the first respondent took the southern portion of the ground floor of the premises on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 725. It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time of leasing out the said portion, the petitioner was running a restaurant. The restaurant was closed due to labour problem. It is the case of the petitioner-landlord that there was a need to restart a restaurant in the premises to cater to the ne...
Tag this Judgment!Eagle Brand Soapnut Company Vs. Rangasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: 1997ACJ1006
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Srinivasan, counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Balachandran for the respondent/ claimant No. 1. The respondent No. 2 insurance company was served as early as on 17.5.1993. The respondent No. 2 is also represented by their counsel M/s. Joseph and Rao. Their names were printed in the cause list even on 23.1.1991. When the matter was pending in the court, the learned single Judge of this Court (Ratnam, J.) passed an order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution on 23.1.1991. This main appeal was listed for hearing on 21.1.1997, 27.1.1997 and also today. The names of the counsel for the insurance company are printed in the cause list and in spite of their names being printed in the list, there is no representation on all these days. So we proceed to hear the appeal on merits.2. The owner of the vehicle (van) is the appellant in this appeal. On 2.7.1983 when the injured was travelling in the van belonging to the appellant, to help the mechanic, the veh...
Tag this Judgment!M. Lakshmi Narayanan and ors. Vs. the Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)1MLJ301
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of K.S.Bakthavatsalam, J., in Contempt Application No. 149 of 1992 dated 5.3.1993.2. The learned Judge dismissed the contempt application by observing in paragraph 6 as follows:Having considered the arguments of Mr. S. Sampathkumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/applicants, and of Mr.K.T.Palpandian, the learned Counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied that no contempt has been committed on the facts and circumstances of this case. I find that there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. It is true that there is some delay in implementing the orders of this Court, but the fact remains that the petitioners have been reinstated in the respondent-commission. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the backwages for the period from 1990 to 1992 or not, cannot be decided in this contempt application, since the scope of the contempt application...
Tag this Judgment!indira Ammal Vs. the Revenue Divisional Officer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)2MLJ508
ORDERJayarama Chouta, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner prayed to call for the records in Mu. Mu. No. 20147 of 1986 dated 17.2.1987 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same.2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit filed by the petitioner. He has stated that the 3rd respondent one Ramanujam has obtained a sum of Rs. 10,000 under a registered mortgage deed dated 3.11.1973 under a simple mortgage. The period of redemption was fixed at three years. But the third respondent did not pay any interest towards the mortgage money nor he has taken any steps for redeeming the mortgage. The total area comprised in the mortgage deed is over O.40 acres of punja land consisting of a well and a pumpset, the value of the property being more than Rs. 80,000 and the income from the property is more than Rs. 10,000 per year. In spite of so much of income the 3rd re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »