Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 16-7-2001 made by the Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Respondent No. 1 (SEBI). In the said order, it s held that the Appellant, apart from being a promoter of the Respondent No. 2 (MRL) was also acting in concert with the acquirers, and directed that the Appellant shall not be eligible to participate in the public offer made to the shareholders of MRL by the acquirers vide letter of offer dated 30-5-2001. Tne Appellant filed a writ petition (1536 of 2001) in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the legality and validity of the said order. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the said writ petition vide its order dated 23-7-2001 with the following "In our view, since an appeal has been provided before the appellate authority, the proper course for the petitioner is to prefer an appeal. Mr. Doctor for the petitioners states that an appeal will be filed on or before 25th July, 2001. Inasmuch as the date by whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2002)74TTJLuck848
These two appeals by the different assessees relating to the same group of assessee and involving common grounds are being decided by a common order.Originally, the assessee took several grounds to challenge the block assessment order dated 30-10-1996. However, finally the assessee has pressed only following grounds : "1. Because the learned assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in treating the following : alleged unexplained investment in U.T.I. C.G.G.F. Units Scheme, 1986, purchased in the name of appellant's minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain.alleged unexplained investment in Vijaya Bank cash certificates of Rs. 6,800 and Rs. 9,500 purchased in the name of minor daughter Km.Priyanka Jain.3. Because there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the assessing officer in the matter of passing the impugned order by reasons of: (a) non-issuance/non-service of notice under section 158BC as per the provisions of law; (b) that the valuation report which was made the basis of additio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The director of the applicant is present. He says that the applicant ha snot deposited the amount, wants further period of 10 days to deposit the amount.2. The Tribunal's order disposing of the stay application was dictated on 22.3.2001. The Tribunal asked for a deposit of Rs.25 lakhs (out of the duty, penalty and fine totalling Rs.7.606 crores approximately). An application was filed seeking modification of this order. In the order disposing of that application, the Tribunal noted the statement of the counsel on instruction, that the applicant to file a bank guarantee of Rs.25 lakhs within two weeks from that date. Accepting this submission, it modified the order, permitted bank guarantee to be filed by 31st July, 2001.3. The director present us does not have any satisfactory explanation for not having filed the bank guarantee. He says that he has taken time to get the bank of agree to issue a bank guarantee. He is not able to explain why he misled the counsel by saying that bank ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT
1. This issue relates to modvat credit. Shri parameshwaran appearing for the appellants submitted that modvat credit for the slitting machines being capital goods has been disallowed on the ground that declaration was not filed in time. According to the department the party should have filed declaration within 3 months from the date of fabrication of the machine in question. He also submitted that the party filed modvat credit on 27^th December 1994 much prior to taking the credit as the declaration was duty filed on 22^nd December 1994. He submitted that since this is only a procedural lapse, this should not come in the way of denial of justice. Further, he submits that the very issue has come up for consideration before the Chennai Bench with reference to the DG sets and in the similar circumstances the bench allowed the appeal filed by the party. Not only appeal was allowed but also reference application filed by the department has been rejected as per order No. 64/2000 dated 26.9....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. These four appeals arise out of two commonly worded orders and were disposed off by this common order.2. The brief facts are that the assessee, namely M/s. Modistone Limited (formerly known as M/s. Bombay Tyre International Limited) are manufactures of tyres, tubes and flaps and other products falling under Chapter 40 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed of modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules on the inputs used in the manufacture of the tyres and tubes.Tyres are meant for tractors of engine capacity not exceeding 1800CC are fully exempt from payment of duty in terms of notification 42/86-CE dated 10/02/1986 as amended. Therefore input credit is not admissible for inputs used in the manufacture of the incentive variety tyres and tubes. Since the assessee had availed modvat credit even on inputs which went into the manufacture of the exempted category of tractors, show cause notices proposing recovery of duty and proposing im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2002)82ITD436(Chd.)
1. These three appeals by the Revenue and three cross-objections by the different assessees are directed against orders of CIT(A), Ludhiana, deleting interest charged under Sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the IT Act. The cross-objections have been filed by the assessee merely to support the orders of CIT(A). As common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts of the case are that assessees/respondents are partners of M/s National Feed Store, Ludhiana. The premises of the firm as well as its partners were searched on 18th Sept., 1987, by the Revenue authorities. On search, a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 was found at the residential premises of Sh. Muni Lal, partner. The firm surrendered a sum of Rs. 6,02,000 in the statement of the partners recorded under Section 132(4) of the IT Act. The assessees also furnished guarantee as required by the Revenue authorities for the release...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
1. The Appellants manufacture Refrigerators. With effect from 28.2.94 the duty on Refrigerators was changed from specific rated to advolorem.No sales were effected at the factory gate. Sales were effected from 26 depots situated all over the country. The Appellants filed a price list dated 21.3.1994. They had certain difficulty in giving certain figures and therefore they requested that the assessments be kept provisional.They filed a provisional assessment bond and submitted details of agreements with 3 classes of buyers viz. Whole Sale Dealers, Sale and Service Dealers; and Only Sales Dealers. Subsequently, from time to time price declarations were filed. The prices at which the refrigerators were sold to these 3 varieties of buyers were different.The prices charged from the only sales dealers (OSD) were the highest.Show Cause Notice dated 7.1.99 was issued proposing to adopt the price charged to OSD as the price for assessment for all clearances. Before the Assistant Commissioner t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (2001)(134)ELT515Tri(Chennai)
1. Both these appeals arise from same Order-in-Original No. 16/97, dated 14-3-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai on the ground that the order of Commissioner is erroneous and unsustainable in law inasmuch as he has failed to consider various submissions, grounds and evidence before adjudicating the matter and the order is therefore vitiated. Appellants have been issued a fresh certificate with a fresh number for the factory located at No. 1-B, Avaniapuram Road, Thirupparankundram, under the Factories Act, 1948.They have also submitted that they are a small scale unit and they have given the full ground plan and they have given the information in the prescribed format. It is submitted by the appellants that the Superintendent of the range should have known the details of the earlier manufacturer, if any, which they are not supposed to disclose to the Department suo moto until they were asked. The Department had neither asked nor they were forced to intimate abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (2002)76TTJ(Chd.)186
These three appeals by the revenue and three cross-objections by the different assessees are directed against orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, deleting interest charged under sections 139(8) and 215/217 of the Income Tax Act. The cross-objections have been filed by the assessee merely to support the orders of Commissioner (Appeals).As common issues are involved in these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.The facts of the case are that assessees/respondents are partners of M/s National Feed Store, Ludhiana. The premises of the firm as well as its partners were searched on 18-9-1987, by the revenue authorities. On search, a sum of Rs. 1,55,000 was found at the residential premises of Shri Muni Lal, partner. The firm surrendered a sum of Rs. 6,02,000 in the statement of the partners recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. The assessees also furnished guarantee as required by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow
1. These two appeals by the different assessees relating to the same group of assessee and involving common grounds are being decided by a common order.2. Originally, the assessee took several grounds to challenge the block assessment order dt. 30th Oct., 1996. However, finally the assessee has pressed only following grounds : "1. Because the learned AO has erred in law and on facts in treating the following : (a) Rs. 40,000 alleged unexplained investment in U.T.I. C.G.G.F.. Units Scheme, 1986, purchased in the name of appellant's minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain. (b) Rs. 16,300 alleged unexplained investment in Vijaya Bank cash certificates of Rs. 6,800 and Rs. 9,500 purchased in the name of minor daughter Km. Priyanka Jain. (d) Rs. 10,90,200alleged unexplained investment in residential house. 3. Because there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction in the AO in the matter of passing the impugned order by reasons of: (a) non-issuance/non-service of notice under Section 158BC as per the p...
Tag this Judgment!