Kolkata Court October 1980 Judgments
East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1980
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT126(Cal)
ORDERR.N. Pyne, J.1. This appeal, which is directed against a judgment and order dated September 27, 1974 of Masud, J. involves mainly questions regarding determination of 'value' under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), interpretation and scope of the said Section as also the Notifications dated September 1, 1962 and November 26, 1966.2. Since 1962 the appellant (the petitioner in court of the first instance) has been manufacturing diverse types of 'Cellulose Acetate Moulding Granules' (hereinafter referred to as 'the said goods') used in the manufacture of plastic- end products which are excisable under item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff. During the period relevant to this appeal the Appellant sold and still sells the said goods,'all over the country to various customers and dealers at an uniform price fixed by the appellant from time to time. According to the appellant it granted and still grants long term credit facili...
Tag this Judgment!Anisur Rahaman and anr. Vs. Jalilar Rahaman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal48
ORDERD.C. Chakravorti, J.1. This Rule is directed against Order No. 20 dated 28-6-1978 made in Title Suit No. 21 of 1977 by the Munsif, Mathabhanga, in the district of Cooch-Behar. By the said order the learned Munsif disposed of applications made by three sets of persons claiming to be substituted in place of one Amina Khatoon, widow of Late Ishakuddin, who as the plaintiff brought the said suit. Admittedly said Amina Khatoon died issueless on February 26, 1978. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the legal position that if said Amina Khatoon at the time of her death were governed by Mohammedan Law of inheritance the present petitioners would have a claim to be substituted in her place as preferential heirs of said Amina Khatoon according to the provisions of Mahommedan Law of inheritance. It is the further admitted legal position that if said Amina Khatoon at the time of her death were governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law in the matter of succession the Opposite Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanta Kumar Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Cal138
ORDERG.N. Ray, J. 1. In this Rule, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing the date of publication as on May 28, 1979 in the Calcutta Gazette (Extraordinary) issued by the Government of West Bengal, Land Utilisation and Land Reforms and Land Revenue Department in respect of premises No. 4 Middleton Row, Calcutta, measuring more or less 2894 of a hectare (.7076 of an acre) is under challenge. The petitioner contends that respondent No. 7, Dr. Graham's Homes, Kalimpong, a society registered under the Societies Registration. Act is the owner of the land and building situated at premises No. 4 Middleton Row, Calcutta and the respondent No. 8, Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright was the President and/or Chairman of the said Dr. Graham's Homes at the relevant time and the said Mr. Robert Hamilton Wright represented to the petitioner that he had the authority to conduct the affairs of the respondent Dr. Graham's Homes including negotiations for disposal of its properti...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. MartIn Burn Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: [1982]136ITR805(Cal)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This reference arises out of the assessment years 1962-63 and 1964-65. The following question has been referred to us under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts represented by the tariffs and dividends control reserve, contingencies reserve and development reserve did not form part of the accumulated profits of M/s. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. immediately before its liquidation for the purpose of working out the distribution made to the shareholders treated as dividend under the provisions of Section 2(22)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The assessee-company held shares in M/s. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Co. Ltd. whose electricity supply undertaking was handed over to the U.P. State Electricity Board on 5th May, 1959, and which subsequently went into liquidation on 1st March, 1960. During the previous years...
Tag this Judgment!Khardah Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1980
Reported in: 1983(14)ELT2159(Cal)
Anil Kumar Sen, J.1. This is an old Rule which came up for hearing before us on a specific assignment by the learned Chief Justice. Khardah Company Limited, the petitioner before us obtained the above Rule seeking relief alternatively under Article 226 of the Constitution and Article 227 thereof. Their prayer is that the orders dated November 24, 1965 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta Division, April 16, 1966 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Orissa and being set aside the respondents should be directed February 28, 1967 passed by the Central Government to refund the excess excise duty realised from them in respect of their products between the period May 1962 to February 1964. The point involved is a short one, namely, though the respondents do not dispute that there had been such excess realisation whether their liability to refund is barred by limitation prescribed by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. To appreciate and decide ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›