Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2007)7VST197(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. In these writ petitions the question involved is whether service tax on packaging i.e. bottling and labelling of liquor, can be exacted from the distillers and whether they can pass on this liability to the contractors obtaining the supplies from them.2. The petitioners are distillers/retail contractors, licence has been granted for supply of country made liquor for the warehouses situated in various districts of the State of Madhya Pradesh to distillers. The retail contractors take supply from the distillers under the terms of CS-I licence issued to distillers and CS-II licence issued to the retail contractors. The distiller is entitled to receive the cost price of liquor from the Government and the sealing and bottling charges from the retail contractors. The retail contractors are required to deposit the bottling and sealing charges in advance before lifting the country liquor from the warehouse. Licence (P-3) was issued to M/s. Vidhyachal Distilleries Pvt. Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 3/2005 CE dated 12.01.2005. The appellant had been issued with a show cause notice on the ground that they were manufacturing feeding bottles, pet bottles and silicon nipples falling under Chapter Heading 39.23. Silicon nipples manufactured by the appellants are consumed captivity in the manufacturing of feeding bottles which were cleared on payment of duty.They were also clearing silicon nipples at 'NIL' rate of duty under Notification No. 3/2001 dated 1.3.2001 as amended. As the same was exempted as well as dutiable, they maintained separate raw material accounts for the manufacture of exempted and dutiable silicon nipples.The allegation is that during the period from April 2000 to November 2002, they did not reverse 8% of the value of the goods as required under Rule 57AD(2) read with Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat credit Rules 2002 when they cleared exempted silicon nipples made out of Cenvat credit taken inputs. Their case is that when they ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2005)(102)ECC522
1.The appellants are manufactures of computer (sub-heading 8471.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act). In March 1998, they removed 20 computers to certain customers without payment of duty, claiming exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE. Other computers during this period were cleared to other customers on payment of duty.The removal of the exempted computers was accompanied by availment of input duty credit. This was objected to by the department who wanted to recover from the party 8% of the sale price of the exempted computers under Rule 57 CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A show-cause notice was issued for this purpose. Both lower authorities have upheld the proposal in the show-cause notice. The present appeal is against the demand under Rule 57 CC.2. After hearing both sides, I find that the only ground of this appeal is that the above demand cannot be enforced in the absence of recovery mechanism in the Central Excise law. Ld. Counsel has reiterated this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR5814; (2007)8VST495(Karn)
ORDERAbdul Nazeer, J.1. Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and is a Dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'KST Act') and Central Sales Tax, 1956 (for short 'CST Act'). The Assessing Authority of the Petitioner is the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assts. 41-Fast Track), Bangalore City Division IV, Bangalore.2. The Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence-XII) (4th respondent herein) inspected the premises of the Petitioner on 05.06.2003 and seized certain documents. He issued a notice dated 17.04.2004 under Section 29 of the KST Act for compounding the offences in terms of the said notice. The Joint Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Intelligence), South Zone (Respondent No. 3) permitted the 4th respondent to make provisional assessment as per Section 28(6) of the KST Act on 02.08.2004. Thereafter, the 4th respondent has passed the orders under Section 28(6) of the Act on 21.08.2004 as per Annexure 'G' and H respectively.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2005CriLJ218
ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. Though the matter is listed for orders on an interlocutory application, by consent, the writ petition is heard finally.2. A petition under Section 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act ('N. I. Act' for short) was filed by the respondent before the J. M. F. C. Yellapur against the petitioner herein. According to the respondent, the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 54,900/- on 25-10-1998. On presentation, the cheque issued by the petitioner, returned with a Shera 'insufficient funds'. Therefore the respondent issued a notice and thereafter filed a complaint on 25-11-1998 in P. C. 51/98. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, on 17-5-1999 the cognizance was taken by the Court. Subsequently, evidence was also recorded. When the case was posted for arguments on merits, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 190 of Cr. P. C. read with 142 of N. I. Act, requesting the Court to discharge him, on the ground that the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2003CriLJ4354; ILR2003KAR3452
Veerabhadraiah, J.1. This appeal is by the accused being aggrieved of the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No 52/94 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur dated 11.11.1997 convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC sentencing him to undergo S.I. for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:The accused Vasanth Kumar was working as a writer in, Gavanahalli Nanda Kumar Slate Frame Cutting Saw Mill, whereas the deceased Shanthi was also working as a labourer therein and she was residing with her parents and a child by name Asha. The accused developed intimacy with the deceased and she gave birth to a child and both were residing at Rampura, which is by the side of Gavanahalli. In the meanwhile, the accused secured a Government job at Bantwal and visiting the house of the deceased frequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [2003]115CompCas676(Kar); ILR2002KAR2289; 2002(6)KarLJ133
1. These writ appeals are filed by M/s. Bharat Beedi Works Limited, auction purchaser and the Vijaya Bank respectively against the order dated 5/6-7-2001, passed in the case of K. Kunhambu and Anr. v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and Ors., W.P. No. 12994 of 1999 (GM-DRT), DD: 5/6-7-2001 wherein the learned Single Judge has set aside the public auction held on 30-3-1999, quashed the confirmation of sale of the property in question in favour of the auction purchaser made on 4-2-2000 and directed the auction purchaser to deliver the possession of the property back to Mrs. Laxmi Kutty, respondent 2, petitioner 2. 2. The necessary facts in W.A. Nos. 4623 to 4625 of 2001 are that at the instance of the first respondent, the 5th respondent-Vijaya Bank had issued Bank guarantees to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs to three different financiers in order to purchase some timber. The said financiers though invoked the said Bank guarantee did not ensure supply of timber, which made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002(1)KarLJ51
ORDERThe Court 1. The petitioner in filing the instant writ petition had challenged the order dated 15-7-1989 passed by the respondent 2, copy as at Annexure-A to writ petition, in passing whereof, the respondent 1 had discharged the petitioner from the military services of the respondent 1 as he was found guilty in a summary Court-martial proceedings held preceding the above discharge order. The petitioner further prayed in the writ petition that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The respondents are represented by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Sri S.N Rajendra. At the instance of the Court, Col. Bhupendra Singh (Retd.), a practising Advocate of this Court, had been requested to assist the Court. Accordingly, he had been appointed as Amiens Curiae in the case. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Biradar, appearing along with Sri G.G. Chagashetty, while taking me through the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(5)KarLJ664
ORDER1. This regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff arises out of Execution Petition No. 75 of 1982 on the file of Additional Munsiff and JMFC, Chikodi. This execution petition was to execute the partition decree granted in O.S. No. 174 of 1953 which was confirmed in R.A. No. 416 of 1954. Therefore, the decree of O.S. No. 174 of 1953 is yet to be executed and the same is pending for 45 years as on date. It is quite unfortunate that such position is rendered by the fight between the parties and the delay has occurred in Courts.2. The suit for partition by one Appalal Mohammed Desai, against his brothers ended in a decree. The sons and daughters of deceased Isaqwallad Ahamad Desai have presented the execution petition for partition to direct the papers to be sent to Deputy Commissioner for effecting the partition under Section 54 of the CPC. It was claimed that the decree-holder was entitled for 1/4 share and if that be the legal position and if the partition in the suit proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2249; 1998(6)KarLJ171
ORDER1. The petition is taken up with the consent of parties.2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 969 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shimoga. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 1989. The petitioner sought for amendment of the plaint in LA. No. XVIII. The Trial Court dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that it was belated. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court in LA. No. XVIII, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this CRP.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sugandaraj Shetty and Hanumappa is not binding upon the plaintiff and prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. It was submitted that by mistake the kharab portion of 1 acre 8 guntas was not included in the prayer of the plaint and also in the schedule. The kharab portion of 1 acre 8 ...
Tag this Judgment!