Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1980(6)ELT615(Ker)
ORDERT. Kochu Thomman, J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of tread rubber which used for retreading rubber tyres. Tread rubber is one of . the excisable goods mentioned under Item 16A of Schedule I to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.Section 3 of the Act states : -'3 Duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied. - (1) There shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufactured in or imported by land into, any part of India, as, and the rates, set forth in the First Schedule.The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (The Rules) provide for the manner of assessment. Rules 9, 10 and 10A deal with assessment in the ordinary course i.e.,assessment by the departmental authorities. The provisions of Chapter VIIA deal with a different kind of assessments, relate to goods which have been ied by the Central Government in terms of Section 173A of the Act.Admittedly tread rubber is one of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]117ITR599(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The following question of law has been referred for our opinion under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, viz.: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the industry was not in existence during the accounting year, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1972-73 ?'2. The assessee is a limited company. The assessment year with which we are concerned is 1972-73. The assessee was doing business under thename and style of 'The Cochin State Power and Light Corporation Ltd.' till the Kerala State Electricity Board exercised its option to purchase the undertaking under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. That was with effect from December 2, 1970. The meter readings of the electricity consumed in any month was being taken by the staff of the compan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)ILLJ211Ker
Balakrishna Eradi, J.1. The principal question arising for determination in this case is whether the termination of service of a casual labourer employed under the railway administration brought about by the operation of Rule 2505 of the Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter called the Manual) by reason of his having absented himself constitutes 'retrenchment' so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). A division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Eradi, J.) was a member by its order of reference dated 29th September, 1978 referred the case to a Full Bench in view of the importance of the matter.2. The writ petitioner was working as a casual employee under the Southern Railway administration. According to the petitioner he had been continuously functioning as such from 1948 onwards but this is not admitted by the respondents. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the particulars furnished by the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1983(14)ELT2156(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiar, C.J.1. The Assistant Collector,. Central Excise, Ernakulam, the Appellant Collector, Central Excise, Madras,, and the Union of India, are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 124 of 1975 and declaring Exts. P4 and P6 and orders as illegal and holding that the claim for refund preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was within time and directing the same to be considered on the merits in accordance with law.2. The respondent is the Proprietor of Royal Smiths, Kunnamkulam, engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture. Between 2-4-1969 and 24-9-1969 he had cleared steel furniture whose total value came to Rs. 1,44,241.50. In accordance with the terms of Ext. PI notification which we shall presently notice, he filed an application for refund of the duty self-addressed and paid by him. The application was preferred on 29-3-1971. Ext. P2 notice dated 22-7-1972 was issued to him to show cause why the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1983LC633D(Kerala)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The Assistant Co Hector, Central Excise, Ernakulam, the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Madras, and the Union of India, are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge allowing O.P. No. 124 of 1975 and declaring Exts. P. 4 and P. 6 fend orders as illegal and holding that the claim for refund preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was within time and directing the same to b e ^considered on the merits in accordance with law.2. The respondent is the Proprietor of Royal Smiths, Kunnamkulam, engaged in the manufacture of steel furniture. Between 2.4.1969 and 24.9.1969 he had cleared steel furniture whose total value came to Rs. 1,44,241.50. In accordance with the terms of Ext. P 1 notification which we shall presently notice he filed an application for refund of the duty self-assessed and paid by him. The application was preferred on 29.3.1971. Ext. P 2 notice dated 22.7.1972 was issued to him to show cause why the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]44STC312(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These appeals, tax revisions and the writ petitions raise an interesting question regarding the meaning of the expressions 'frozen meat' and 'fresh fish' occurring in an exemption notification issued under Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. We quote the said notification and the two relevant entries in the First Schedule thereto:S.R.O. No. 342/63.--In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963), the Government of Kerala having considered it necessary in the public interest so to do hereby make an exemption in respect of the tax payable under the said Act on the sale or purchase of the goods specified in Schedule I hereto appended and by persons specified in Schedule II hereto appended in regard to their turnover on the sales of goods specified therein subject to the conditions specified therein.Schedule I23. Fresh fish.25. Meat except meat which is cured or frozen.With respec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1979)IILLJ1Ker
Viswanatha Iyer, J.1. The petitioner entered the service of the Cochin Divisional office of the General Assurance Society Ltd., as a field officer with effect from 1.10.1969. One of the terms of appointment was that she should guarantee a minimum business of Rs. 35,000 in Fire, Motor, Marine and Miscellaneous Insurance and a minimum premium income of Rs. 3,000 per mensem. As part of her duty she has to organise an effective agency force and work in consonance with the provisions of the Insurance Act and the Rules. She was on probation for six months and during that period her appointment was terminable without any notice. She completed her probation successfully and her service was regularised in due course. While so in September, 1972 the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, Act 57 of 1972 was passed by the Parliament. By this Act the shares in the capital of every Indian Insurance Company was statutorily transferred to and vested in the Central Government. The Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1980)13CTR(Ker)366; [1980]121ITR985(Ker)
SUBRAMONIAN POTI J. - These are appeals filed by CIT, Kerala-I, Ernakulam, against a common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. The appeals before the Tribunal concerned the same matter but were by different parties. Those appeals were against the one and the same order of the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range, Ernakulam. Since the Tribunal purported to dispose of those six appeals by the common order the Commissioner has filed six appeals in this court.The competent authority under the I.T. Act, passed an order for the acquisition of an immovable property under s. 269F of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was the case of the competent authority that the immovable property in respect of which the acquisition proceedings were commenced was transferred for consideration which was less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties had not been duly stated in the instrument of transfer and furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1980]121ITR178(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These writ petitions attack the constitutional validity of Section 2(6), 2(7)(e) and Part IV of the 1st Schedule of the Finance Act, 1973 ; and also Sections 2(2), 2(7)(b)(ii), 2(8)(e) and Part IV of the Finance Act, 1974. Section 2(6) and 2(7)(e) of the Finance Act, 1973, provides as follows : '2. (6) In the cases to which Sub-Paragraph I or Sub-Paragraph II of Paragraph A of Part III of the First Schedule applies, where the assessee has, in the previous year or, if by virtue of any provision of the Income-tax Act income-tax is to be charged in respect of the income of a period other than the previous year, in such other period, any net agricultural income, in addition to total income, and the total income exceeds five thousand rupees, then, in calculating income-tax under the first proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 132 of the Income-tax Act or in charging income-tax under Sub-section (2) of Section 174 or Section 175 or Sub-section (2) of Section 176 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]44STC208(Ker)
V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. 1. These tax revision cases have been referred to a Full Bench to consider the correctness of the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Kassim Kannu v. State of Kerala [1970] 26 S.T.C. 530 particularly, in view of the later Division Bench ruling in C.C. Transport Company v. State of Kerala [1977] 40 S.T.C. 444. The question involved is regarding the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under the Sales Tax Act and, whether, in exercising the same, it is open to the revisional authority to trench upon the power and jurisdiction of getting at the escaped turnover and bringing the same to tax 'or' assessment.2. T.R.C. No. 12 of 1978.--M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Limited, Kottayam, is the petitioner in this tax revision. The factory has its headquarters in Madras and its purchase depots in Kottayam and Calicut. The assessment year concerned is 1970-71. Rubber is taxable at the last purchase point. Rubber is locally purchased from Kerala State and sold in Madras. ...
Tag this Judgment!