Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-15-1989
Reported in : 1993(44)ECC84
..... chemical examiner or an expert in this regard, and thereafter appropriate duty to be collected thereon. aggrieved against that portion of the adverse order, a revision under section 36 of central excises and salt act, 1944 was filed before the first respondent, which confirmed the same by order dated 24.2.1979. therefore, it had necessitated the filing of the writ petition ..... . subramaniam, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, would submit that, any misconception entertained by a licensee about the nature of the goods, would not confer a right under the act to claim payment of duty, unless it be established by the authorities, that aluminium sheets and plates had been manufactured by petitioner. statements forcibly taking [taken?] by the authorities on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-1989
Reported in : (1989)2MLJ503
..... 5. in this writ petition it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a worker within the meaning of the industrial disputes act and the mandatory requirements of section 25-f have not been complied with and hence the retrenchment is illegal. it is the definite case of the petitioner that he was a general ..... that he was employed as a general worker in the first respondent company on a monthly pay of rs. 425. he questioned the management's act of retrenching him and wanted reinstatement by filing section 2-a petition before the labour officer. conciliation attempts failed. he was senior most worker and he was retrenched, without any reasons and compensation. ..... to go and could not be asked to collect his dues afterwards. we are therefore of the clear view that the management failed to comply with the requirements of section 25-f (a) and (h) and therefore the termination order is invalid. hence we are unable to agree with the finding of the labour court upholding the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-30-1989
Reported in : [1990]33ITD222(Mad)
..... the jewellery in favour of the donee at least for 74 months. therefore it comes under a gift revocable after a certain period and it falls under section 6(2) of the gift-tax act and hence the value of such gift should be computed according to the terms of rule 11 of the gift-tax rules. dr. gowri shankar argued that ..... revocable gifts after a specified period for purposes of levy of gift-tax. in the absence of definition of irrevocable transfer just like the one available under section 4 explanation of the wealth-tax act for purposes of gift-tax even if a gift is revocable after any specified period, which is not necessarily over a period of more than six years ..... the assessee went in appeal before the commissioner (appeals). it is contended before him that the gift is void since it is revocable offending the provisions of section 126 of the transfer of property act. since it is not a valid gift the question of taxing the same does not arise and assessing rs. 14,68,000 towards the value of the .....
Tag this Judgment!