Kolkata Court April 2004 Judgments

Assistant Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2004)2CALLT515(HC),2004(3)CHN573,2004(96)ECC436,2004(169)ELT3(Cal)

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. The respondent is a shoe manufacturing company. For the purpose of manufacturing of shoes cotton fabrics are required.2. Prior to August 1, 1960 excise duty was not leviable on the said duty paid cotton fabrics.3. By a notification dated August 1, 1960 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Batanagar the appellant levied excise duty on the said cotton fabrics under the tariff item 'friction cloth'.4. The shoe manufacturing company started making payment of the excise duty on and from the said date under protest. There had been series of correspondence between the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand. Ultimately, Ministry of Finance by a circular dated December 22, 1965 informed that no duty was payable on the 'friction cloth' as per the letter of the Central Board of Revenue dated September 26,1963.5. On June 21,1966 the Central Excise, Batanagar wrote to the appellant that the subject item did not attract excise dut...

Statesman Limited and anr. Vs. Eighth Industrial Tribunal and ors.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2004(3)CHN282,(2004)IIILLJ1109Cal

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The respondent No. 2 was a casual employee of the Statesman Limited. He was appointed on July 16, 1982 and was discharged from service on May 1, 1997. According to the workman he completed 240 days work in a calendar year to fulfill the requirement of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act, 1947'). According to him since he fulfilled the requirement of Section 25B he was entitled to a notice under Section 25F which was not served upon him. Hence, the discharge from service and/or retrenchment was illegal.2. The workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act, 1947.3. Before the Tribunal it was the categoric case of the workman that he completed 240 days to make the requirement of Section 25B of the said Act, 1947 and as such he was entitled a notice under Section 25F which was not given.4. In the written statement the...

B.B. Engineering Works and ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(3)CHN496

Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. The opposite party tiled O.A. No. 107 of 1994 against the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Kolkata, inter alia, praying for certificate or order for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,32,617.84 along with interest and also for declaration that the assets mentioned in the schedule to the said application remain hypothecated and charged to the opposite party as security. The said O.A. No. 107 of 1994 was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal (III), Kolkata and was renumbered as T.A. No. 83 of 2002.2. That on receiving a copy of the said O.A. No. .1.07 of 1994 the petitioners appointed M/s. T. Paul Company, Chartered Accountants to scrutinise the statement of accounts. The petitioners alleged that on scrutiny it was found that the opposite party by reason of arithmetical and clerical errors in the statement of accounts increased its alleged claim by a sum of Rs. 92,436.36 The petitioners submitted that if a sum of Rs. 92,436.36 is deducted from the purpo...

Assistant Collector of C.Ex. Vs. Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd.

Court: Kolkata

Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. The respondent is a shoe manufacturing company. For the purpose of manufacturing of shoes cotton fabrics are required.2. Prior to August 1,1960 excise duty was not leviable on the said duty paid cotton fabrics.3. By a notification dated August 1, 1960 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise, Batanagar the appellant levied excise duty on the said cotton fabrics under the tariff item 'friction cloth'.4. The shoe manufacturing company started making payment of the excise duty on and from the said date under protest. There had been series of correspondence between the appellant on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand. Ultimately, Ministry of Finance by a circular dated December 22,196S informed that no duty was payable on the 'friction cloth' as per the letter of the Central Board of Revenue dated September 26,1963.5. On June 21,1966 the Central Excise, Batanagar wrote to the appellant that the subject item did not attract excise duty.6...

Julious Tete Vs. State

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2004(3)CHN541

G.C. De, J.1. This jail appeal at the instance of the convict Julious Tete was forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent of Berhampore Central Jail, Murshidabad. The appellant Julious Tete challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 8.1.97 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 52 of 1994 (S.T. No. 9/95) arising out of G. R. Case No. 1376 of 1992. By the said judgment the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 IPC, convicted thereunder and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer R.I. for one year.2. Prosecution case in brief is that on getting a written complaint from Dipak Basu, a pharmacist of Kunlai Tea Estate, P.S. Mal, Jalpaiguri FIR 172/92 dated 2.11.92 was drawn under Section 326 of IPC. In course of investigation it was detected that one Bhowa Bhakta with bleeding injuries was sent to Jalpaiguri Sadar Hospital on 1.11.92 night where he succumbed to his injuri...

Mrs. Rekha Dixit Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2004)2CALLT370(HC)

P.K. Biswas, J.1. The instant revisional application is directed against the criminal proceeding being Case No. C-43/99 under Section 420/471 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta praying for quashing of the aforesaid proceeding and also praying for setting aside the order dated 12.04.99 whereby and whereunder summons were issued against the present petitioner.2. The facts leading to the filing of this revisional application may be stated as under:The aforesaid criminal proceeding was initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Ratanlal Sethia, opposite party No. 2 herein before the learned CMM, Calcutta wherein commission of offence by the petitioner and others punishable under Sections 420, 423, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code was alleged.3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that she is erstwhile Director of M/s. Sequence Estates Pvt. Ltd. and she resigned from the p...

Nripen Das Vs. State and anr.

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2004(3)CHN180

G.C. De, J.1 .This appeal by the convict is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.6.97 and the sentence dated 13.6,97 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalpaiguri in Sessions Case No. 92/96 arising out of Kotwali P.S., Jalpaiguri case number 425 of 1994 under Section 376 of IPC (G.R. Case No. 1503 of 94). By the said judgment the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found the accused Nripen Das guilty under Section 376 of the IPC and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer R,I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- i.d. to suffer further R.I. for one year. Direction was also given that the fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the victim Kalpana Biswas as compensation. It is also directed that the period of detention of the convict in course of the trial is to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Prosecution case in brief is that Kalpana Biswas became blind at the age of seven being attacked by Typhoi...

Kamal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: 2005(98)ECC209,2004(171)ELT301(Cal)

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. By this writ application the petitioners who had hitherto been recently a Custom House Clearing Agent, have impugned an interim order of suspension dated 31-3-04, purported to have been passed under new Regulation 20 Clause 2 of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 which has come into force on 23-2-04. This impugned order owes origin to an incident took place in the year 2000. The petitioners cleared certain imported goods on behalf of their client as a duty free goods and on production of the advance licence. Later on it was found and further alleged that this licence was forged as the importer was not in existence. The Revenue Intelligence Department as well as the CBI took up investigation and they have found prima facie some materials, for which action has been taken under the regular Criminal Law as well as the Revenue Law.2. It appears that on detection of the fraud and forgery and consequently the evasion of customs and other duties, the...

Nicco Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)194CTR(Cal)59,[2005]272ITR58(Cal)

M.H.S. Ansari, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The same was admitted by this court and the following questions of law arising out of an order dated May 2, 2000, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Calcutta, in income-tax appeal being I. T. A. No. 425/Cal of 1995 for the assessment year 1988-89, were framed :'(1) Whether the determination and/or computation under Section 115J is required to be made in an order under Section 143(3) and not having been so made the liability, if any, under Section 115J lapses and cannot be introduced by seeking to rectify a subsequent order under Section 154 ?(2) Whether in a case where according to the Department the determination and/or computation under Section 115J was required to be made in the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) but was not made, can such determination and/or computation under Section 115J be made by seeking to rectify a subsequent order under Section 154 ?(3) W...

Mrs. Manju Kataruka Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2005)94TTJ(Kol.)873

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dt. 27th June, 2003 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of an order of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,000 imposed by the AO under Section 271F of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) for the asst, yr. 2000-01.2. Material facts, in brief, related to the issue involved in this appeal are as under : The AO noted that the assessee filed return of income on 20th March, 2002 for the asst. yr. 2000-01 showing total income at Rs. 89,980. The due date within the meaning of Section 139(1) was 31st Aug., 2000. The asst. yr. 2000-01 had ended on 31st March, 2001. The last date for filing return of income was 31st March, 2001 as contemplated under Section 271F of the Act. The assessee did not furnish the return of income before the end of the relevant assessment year. Penalty proceedings under Section 271F were initiated by the Act and a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why penalty as provided under Section 271F...