Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-31-2003
Reported in : 2003IVAD(Delhi)154; 107(2003)DLT15; 2004(165)ELT35(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.-1. Petitioner No. 1, which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, is a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Petitioner No. 2 is its Company Secretary and General Manager (Admn.). In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the action of the respondent No. 3 in demanding Textile Cess levied under Section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act' for short) from the petitioner No. 1 (hereinafter called as 'petitioner company 'for short'). The case of the petitioners is that as the petitioner company is a 100% EOU, it is exempted from payment of such cess. It is not in dispute that the petitioner company is otherwise exempted from payment of excise duty and other Central levies being 100% EOU. 2. The facts are in narrow compass and, may be noted in the first instance.3. The petitioner company has been set up for manufacture of cotton fabrics. It applied to the respondents 1 and 2 for grant of permission/license to set u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-06-2003
Reported in : [2004]136TAXMAN187(Punj& Har)
ORDERThis revision petition has been filed by the accused-petitioners under section 401/482 Cr. P.C., seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, comply Annexure P-1 and also quashing the order dated 19-1-1990 copy Annexure P-3 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, vide which order dated 22-5-1989 copy Annexure P-2 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate discharging the accused was set aside and the case was ordered to be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry into the matter.2. The acts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that the Income Tax Officer filed a complaint for the offence under section 277 of the Income Tax Act, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioners and others. It was alleged that M/s. Vishkarma Motors, accused No. 1, was a partnership concern of which accused Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Hardayal Singh, Rakha Singh and Smt. Punna Devi wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Decided on : Nov-10-2003
Reported in : (2004)90ITD344(Hyd.)
1. These are three appeals in all, for the assessment year 1991-92. Two of them are filed by the assessee, and the third one, viz. ITA No.253/Hyd/95 is filed by the Revenue. Of the two appeals filed by it, the assessee did not press the appeal, ITA No. 460/Hyd/95. The same is accordingly dismissed. In effect, we are left with two appeals, viz.ITA No. 99/Hyd/95 by the assessee and ITA 253/Hyd/95 by the Revenue, which are cross-appeals, directed against the order of the CIT(A)-V, Hyderabad dated 24.5.94.2. The assessee company has two manufacturing units -one for fertilizers and the other for cement. Initially, the Company was incorporated on 16.10.61 for manufacture and sale of fertilizers. It set up a cement unit in 1984. The said cement unit was sold as per an agreement executed on 9.6.1990 between the assessee company and a Madras based company, the India Cements Limited, for a consideration of Rs. 105,69,54,104 and this consideration comprised of Rs. 105.30-crores for fixed assets ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-25-2003
Reported in : 2003(90)ECC745; 2003LC769(SC); 2003(158)ELT545(SC); JT2003(10)SC282; 2003(10)SCALE37; (2004)1SCC597
ORDER1. The short question that arises for our consideration in these appeals, which arises from the judgments and orders dated 10.2.1997 and 26.3.1996, as regards jurisdiction of the authorities under the Central Excise Act, whether it is permissible to resort to penalty proceedings or forfeiture of goods for non-payment of additional duty in terms of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') by taking recourse to the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder. 2. The respondents herein carry on business of manufacture of man made fabrics. They have alleged to have misdisclosed the composition of certain sorts of fabrics. They were further alleged to have under valued goods by not paying duty on the amount realised through debit notes. The Collector, by his order dated 17th November, 1987, confirmed the levy of duty, amounting to Rs. 1,19,453,59. The Collector held that 36 bales of Fabric of Sort Nos. 1200 and 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-11-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR848; (2004)ILLJ152Bom; 2003(4)MhLj412
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Perused therecords.The petitioner challenges the Judgment and order dated 19-6-2001 passedby the Industrial Court dismissing Appeal No. 36/97 which was filed by thepetitioner against the Judgment and order dated 5-12-1997 of the Labour Court inApplication No. 83/94. The said application was filed by the respondents under Section 78 read with Section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946(hereinafter called as the said Act) claiming permanency in the employment ofthe petitioner. The said application was allowed by the said order dated 5-12-1997 and the petitioners were directed to make the concerned operativesmentioned in the Annexure-A of the application as the permanent employee andthe appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence,the present petition.2. Contending that the six employees who were working in the electricaland mechanical department of the petitioner, had completed c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-30-2003
Reported in : AIR2004Delhi121; II(2004)BC348; [2005]125CompCas380(Delhi); 108(2003)DLT266; [2004]51SCL103(Delhi)
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The Petitioners have prayed for setting aside orders dated 13th and 16th January, 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II, Delhi in RC No. 97/2001 and RC No. 245/2001.2. Two appeals, being Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 1/2003 and 2/2003 were filed against the aforementioned orders, of which Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2/2003 was filed by the Petitioners. These appeals were decided by the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II (for short the Tribunal) on 21st February 2003. The Petitioners have challenged the correctness of the order dated 21st February 2003 also. 3. Since the orders passed by the Recovery Officer were the subject matter of appeals decided by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal on 21st February 2003, essentially, the challenge of the Petitioners is to the correctness of the appellate order dated 21st February 2003, the two orders dated 13th and 16th January 2003 passed by the Recovery Officer having merged w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2003
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR597(SC); 2004(1)BLJR574; JT2003(8)SC451; (2004)1MLJ154(SC); (2003)12SCC474
ORDER1. Before us there are two sets of appeals, one, C.A. Nos. 4542-4544/1998 at the instance of State Bank of India and other, C.A. Nos. 4545-4547/1998 at the instance of the respondent-Contractor. 2. On 6th of October, 1978, the State Bank of India entered into an agreement with the respondent herein (Contractor) for constructing Local Head Officer building at Hyderabad. Clause 36 of the agreement provided for resolution of disputes by arbitration. It is not disputed that in the year 1982 the Contractor completed the constructions in terms of the contract. However, certain disputes arose between the parties as a result whereof the matter was referred to arbitration. Mr. MU Hattikuddur was chosen by the Arbitrators as an Umpire. On 8.8.1984 the Umpire gave an award wherein four claims of the Contractor were allowed in full, seven claims were allowed in part and 15 claims were rejected. A total sum of Rs. 15.85 lacs were found to be payable by the appellant to the Contractor under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-10-2003
Reported in : 2003(5)BomCR295; 2004(28)PTC193(Bom)
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. The Plaintiff has filed this suit to restrain the first Defendant from infringing its copyright in its artistic work and its registered trade mark 'M-Seal' and for passing off.2.From 1968 Mahindra Van Wijk and Visser Ltd. commenced use of the trade mark M-SEAL in respect of its goods.On 21st September, 1970, one K.E. Motiwala, a partner of Defendant No.1 was employed as an engineer by Mahendra Van Wijk and Visser Limited, which was later named as Mahindra Electrochemical Products Ltd. (MEPL).M.E.P.L. applied for and obtained with effect from 16.8.1972 registration of the trade mark 'M-Seal' (lable mark) under registration No.282, 168 in Class-I in respect of epoxy resin compositions included in Class-I used for cementing cracks, holes, leaks and similar defects in metal articles and for other technical purposes. The certificate stated that the registration shall give no right to the exclusive use of the word 'Seal'. The mark was also stated to be associated with No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-13-2003
Reported in : 107(2003)DLT734; 2004(72)DRJ1; 2003(3)JCC292; (2004)136PLR3
Usha Mehra, J.1. Chapter XVI was incorporated in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The said chapter was inserted by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) with effect from April, 1989. The purpose of inserting this chapter under which Section 138 falls was to give power to the Court to impose punishment in case the cheque issued, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability is returned by the Bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid. Such action amounts to an offence punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. Section 139 of the Act deals with the presumption in favor of holder. Section 140 of the Act indicates the defenses which may not be allowed in any prosecution u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-10-2003
Reported in : (2004)IIILLJ324All; (2004)2UPLBEC1577
B. S. Chauhan, J.1. This is a reference made by learned single Judge vide order dated 24.8.1995 hearing the Writ Petition No. 16337 of 1987 and the following two questions have been referred for our opinion :'(1) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the State, of U. P. will be the appropriate Government for making the reference in question on which the impugned award has been passed? and(2) Whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent No. 2 was correctly held to be a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?'2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the respondent-employee, Shri R. K. Sharma was appointed by the petitioner-company as a Medical Representative vide order dated 17.10.1973 (Annexure-3) and given the area of Allahabad for its operation. His services stood terminated vide order dated 8th March, 1985 (Annexure-7) with effect from 20.3.1985. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide order...
Tag this Judgment!