|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 292 Records
-
1992 (1) TMI 212 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Dispension of predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... cannot lead to a conclusion that over the past period of two years, goods have been processed only with the aid of power. However as regards the goods seized and duty involved on such goods, the issues are debatable. We also find that the financial condition of the appellants is not sound to the extent of meeting the demand. Taking all these aspects into consideration we direct the applicants to furnish a bond covering the entire duty amount. We also direct the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) in cash, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and report compliance within nine weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. On compliance with the direction, there shall be stay and waiver of recovery of the balance of duty and penalty amounts. The plant and machinery ordered confiscation should not be disposed of by the Department and normal process of production need not be interfered with.
-
1992 (1) TMI 211 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... nion that the appellants are entitled to the refund of the duty paid by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands with respect to the bid value of these three vessels. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the learned Assistant Collector is hereby directed to refund the Duty amount of Rs. 6,81,923.00 (Rupees six lakh eighty-one thousand nine hundred twenty-three only) (which amount is subjected to the correct calculation of 51.7 of the total bid amount of Rs. 13,90,000.00) to the appellants, subject to their executing a Personal Bond/Guarantee along with a Surety, to the effect that the three trawlers in question will not be broken up in future and in case of their break-up they shall refund back the above amount in question immediately thereafter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Application No. 267/90 is only an application stating the facts of the case and arguments of the appellants and in the light of the above order, that application also stands disposed of.
-
1992 (1) TMI 210 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty on transporter ... ... ... ... ..... been taken is also not valid. The appellants had accepted the goods for transport to Calcutta. There is no evidence that they had knowledge of their non-duty paid character and there is nothing to point to their involvement in their transport any guilty knowledge. The consignors and their address turning to be fictitious in some cases on verification by the Department does not establish any case against the transporters. Their coming forward to get the goods released provisionally cannot be held out against them. They had accepted the goods for transport and it is their responsibility to hand over the goods to the concerned persons. To discharge their obligation if they had taken delivery of the goods, the inference drawn by the Collector cannot be read into their action of taking delivery of the goods for penalising them. 10. Accordingly, we find the order unsustainable. The Appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The appellants are entitled to the consequential reliefs.
-
1992 (1) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... electrically operated measuring and checking instruments rdquo and were classified under Heading 90.29(1) read with 90.28(4). On the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court quoted above, it has to be held that the words ldquo The rate applicable to nonelectric counter-parts rdquo against Heading No. 90.28(4) in the Tariff implied only the rate specified against Heading No. 90.16(1) in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and not the duty determined having regard to any exemption notification issued under the provisions of Section 25. 11. Since in the Notification No. 394-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 the Heading Nos. 90.29(1) and 90.28 were not specifically mentioned, it has to be assumed that the Central Government did not intend to extend the benefit of the exemption to the goods covered by these headings. 12. In view of the above discussion the Tribunal rsquo s order quoted by the learned Consultant, cannot form a precedent. 13. The appeals are accordingly rejected.
-
1992 (1) TMI 208 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... edit facility to a distant buyer without knowing his credentials is also incorrect because as we have mentioned earlier in the order the appellant had supplied the name of Shri B.D. Kochar. The appellant had in their reply to the show cause notice, furnished the name of Shri B.D. Kochar as the person through whom they sold the goods to Bharat Electronics and this fact appears to have been totally overlooked by the adjudicating authority. The order does not disclose any reasonable, justifiable basis for imposition of penalties upon them and appears to have been based only on flimsy grounds. 6. In the light of the above discussions we set aside the penalties imposed upon the appellant and the firm and direct refund of the amounts of penalties if deposited. The order is modified to the extent set out above. 7. In the result the appeals are allowed. 8. Before we part we would like to place on record our deep appreciation of the able assistance rendered to the Bench by both sides.
-
1992 (1) TMI 207 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Seizure of sale proceeds of smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... d gold biscuits is confiscable as held by the adjudicating authority under Section 121 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the evidence on record and we, therefore, uphold the absolute confiscation of the same in terms of the impugned order. 7. Keeping in mind that the appellant was a COFEPOSA detenu in jail for about 8 months and that the same transaction has given rise to an offence under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 as well and also having regard to the fact that the Gold (Control) Act stands repealed as on date, we are inclined to think that the interests of justice would be met if the penalty on appellant Chauhan under the Gold (Control) Act is reduced to Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten thousand) and we order accordingly. 8. Appellant Hirachand has not been imposed any penalty and there is no specific relief prayed for in his appeal against the impugned order. Therefore the appeal filed by Hirachand is dismissed as mis-conceived in law. 9. In the result the appeals stand dismissed as above.
-
1992 (1) TMI 206 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Predeposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... really material for the purpose of attracting Para 7 of the said notification that the mark should be affixed by the manufacturer himself who is availing the benefit of the notification inasmuch as at the time of clearance top and bottom covers, the brand name lsquo Usha rsquo is visible and thus there is an association in the course of trade between the goods and the brand name owner. As regards the financial condition he submits that in the absence of any evidence regarding poor financial condition, he cannot make any comments. 4. We have considered the pleas advanced by both the sides. Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86 is very clear which is attracted prima facie only when the small scale manufacturers availing the benefit of the said notification affixes the trade mark in question. Obviously, this has not been done in this case. Prima facie, therefore, we are of the view that the applicants have strong prima facie case. Accordingly, we allow the stay unconditionally.
-
1992 (1) TMI 205 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... , the ld. SDR, referred to the relevant findings of the Collector to show that the declaration in the classification list was found to be not correct on the basis of test report. Hence he supported the order. 4. After hearing both the sides, we are prima facie satisfied, that there had been a proper declaration of the description of the product and they had also sought for classification under T.I. 68 and later under T.I. 38.01 after 1-3-1986 and these classification lists have been approved. Nothing prevented the Department from drawing samples and till the classification list is decided, they could have ordered provisional assessment. Invoking the extended period, alleging suppression in a case like this, prima facie does not appeal to us. Hence we grant stay and waiver of recovery of both duty and penalty amounts. Plant and machinery ordered confiscation should not be Disposed of and the normal process of production should not be disturbed, till the disposal of the appeal.
-
1992 (1) TMI 204 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay/Predeposit of duty and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... may not be in a position to make any cash deposit or furnish bank guarantee. 3. Smt. Lipika, the ld. SDR for the respondent pleaded that the applicants may be directed to deposit the duty amount. 4. After hearing both the sides, since the unit has been declared as sick unit by BIFR and as per the provisions of the Sick Industries Act, cash deposit or bank guarantee cannot be insisted upon. Hence, we direct the authorised representative who is responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the firm, to give a bond undertaking, on behalf of the company that the dues covered by the adjudication order would be met, if their appeal fails. The applicants are granted four weeks time to furnish the undertaking and reporting compliance within five weeks, failing which their appeal is liable to be rejected. The plant and machinery ordered confiscation may not be disposed of by the Department and the normal course of production may not be interfered with, till the disposal of the appeal.
-
1992 (1) TMI 203 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Stay public sector undertakings ... ... ... ... ..... rprises and the Ministry of Law to monitor disputes between Ministry and Ministries of various Industries and Public Sector Undertaking to ensure that no litigation comes to Court or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first examined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation. In view of the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court, we are not entertaining the stay applications till the clearance from the committee is produced before us. The Department also should wait the outcome of decision of the committee. If the Department resorts to any coercive measures, the Tribunal may be approached, if need be.
-
1992 (1) TMI 202 - ITAT PUNE
Income, Assessable As, Business Income
... ... ... ... ..... ent of Maharashtra in directing these deductions. If this is so, there is no income at all and therefore the treatment given to these deductions in the earlier years was the correct way of treatment and assessment to tax. The deviation sought for these years based upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bazpur Co-operative Sugar factory Ltd. does not seem to be right because there the deductions were made with the obvious purpose of setting them off against losses, their conversion to the share capital being remote. The Supreme Court therefore regarded those amounts as assessee s own trading receipts. 31. For these reasons, we allow the assessee s appeals on all these points. There being no other point, these appeals arc allowed. 32. Before we part with this case, we once again wish to place our profound sense of appreciation and alertness for the assistance rendered to us both by the learned counsel for the assessee, the intervenor and the Departmental Representative.
-
1992 (1) TMI 199 - ITAT PUNE
High Court, Income From Business, Interest On Excess Collection, Mercantile System, Sugar Manufacturing Company, Supreme Court, Writ Petition
-
1992 (1) TMI 196 - ITAT PATNA
Amnesty Scheme, Late Filing, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... d ? Answer.--Yes. Except search and seizure cases. Question 9.--Can search and seizure cases be covered under the Circulars ? Answer.--No. The Circulars cover only suo motu declarations of income. 12. It is thus clear from the aforesaid questions and answers that Amnesty Scheme was fully applicable even to assessments which were set aside on appeal and to cases of pending reassessments. It was further applicable even in relation to additions made and contested by the assessee in appeals. The meaning of words suo motu is clear from answer to question No. 9. Only search and seizure cases were not covered under the Circular and in those cases the disclosures were not to be treated as suo motu . For the aforesaid reasons we hold that assessee s case is fully covered by Amnesty Scheme and, therefore, no penalty should be recovered from the assessee under section 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act. We accordingly uphold the order of CWT (Appeals). 13. In the result, the appeals are dismissed
-
1992 (1) TMI 194 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the liability to pay retrenchment compensation arose only when the business was closed and as the assessee had merely provided for a contingent liability and no actual payment was made, such provision would not constitute a quantifiable and allowable deduction. In the case before us, we have found that the business of the assessee was not closed, or discontinued, inasmuch as a part of the business, being that of hiring out the vans did continue. As there was no complete cessation of business activity, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in (1967) 65 ITR 643 (SC) would not apply. On the contrary, the decision of the Kerala High Court in (1991) KLJ (Tax Cases) 641 would squarely apply to the facts of the case before us. 7. We, therefore, reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow retrenchment compensation paid of Rs. 22,501 as a deductible expenditure. 8. The appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 192 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Agricultural Income, Assessing Officer, Attributable To, Charitable And Religious Purposes, Charitable Purpose, Income From Property, Previous Year, Religious Trust, Time Limit For Completion
-
1992 (1) TMI 190 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... that the sum of Rs. 5,57,404 was released to the assessee on its furnishing solvent sureties to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs, but also that whether the said sum of Rs. 5,37,404 recovered from the accused came out of the sum of Rs. 10,75,500 belonging to the assessee. We, therefore, hold that the learned counsel for the assessee was justified in drawing a parallel between the case before us and the case of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust. May be, the assessee has the user of this money, but it is difficult to hold that the said sum will go to fill in the hole created by the theft of Rs. 10,75,500. As for the sum of Rs. 1,02,439, it is a matter of record that the articles and things are still in police custody. Therefore, there is no question of taking the said amount into account. 10. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction in the entirety of the sum of Rs. 10,75,500. 11. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 188 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Capital Employed, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... monies and debts owed by the assessee (including amounts due towards any liability in respect of tax) shall be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets as computed under sub-clause (II). We have also the ruling of the Supreme Court in the very case of Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. (referred to and relied upon by Shri Ramamani) to the effect that all the ingredients of a debt are present in a provision for taxation and that secondly it is a present liability of an ascertainable amount. It should, therefore, follow that the provision for taxation must be deducted from the aggregate value of the assets as computed under section 80J(1A)(II). In this view of the matter, therefore, we hold that the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in allowing the assessee s claim as regards provision for taxation . We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 14. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed
-
1992 (1) TMI 185 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... th May, 1984. In response to the said notice under s. 148, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 5,13,870 on 8th Jan., 1985. The filing of the said return was well within two years relevant to asst. yr. 1983-84 and falls under s. 139(4). Under s. 139(4) the assessee has got time to file the return upto 31st March, 1986. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Burdwan Wholesale Consumer s Co-op. Society vs. CIT held that where the return filed in response to notice under s. 148 is within the time allowed under s. 139, the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off of loss. While coming to the said conclusion their Lordships have followed the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. vs. CIT. Respectfully following these decisions we hold that the CIT(A) is fully justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of business loss computed. We uphold his order. The Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 184 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... epartment in the assessee rsquo s case for the earlier years. However, we confirm the disallowance of Rs. 2,49,346 and Rs. 52,145 in this year since it was not paid in the accounting year relevant to the asst. yr. 1983-84. 22. Since the bonus of Rs. 2,22,139 (for the asst. yr. 1980-81) was paid during the accounting year ending 30th June, 1982, it is allowable in the asst. yr. 1983-84 on payment basis as per the practice consistently followed by the Department in this assessee rsquo s case. Accordingly we direct the ITO to allow this Rs. 2,22,193 as deduction in the asst. yr. 1983-84. 23. Regarding the damages levied under s. 14B of the EPF Act vide order dt. 8th Sept., 1981, we hold that the said amount is to be allowed as deduction in the asst. yr. 1983-84 since the liability has arisen in the accounting year ending 30th June, 1982 relevant to the asst. yr. 1983-84. 24. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeals are allowed in part and the Departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (1) TMI 179 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Business Disallowance, Interest, Salary
... ... ... ... ..... lpana allowed the deduction of remuneration to a partner where such remuneration was paid as a quid pro quo for services rendered and was not attributable to the membership of the firm. In the circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view in the present case. The disallowance has been made in the assessee s own case for the earlier years because the Tribunal did not have the benefit of the subsequent legislation and the decisions which we have referred to above. We also find that for the earlier years the appeals of the assessee were dismissed for non-prosecution. That, however, does not preclude the assessee from making a just claim for the current year and as we have noted above the provisions under section 40(b) cannot be applied to the facts of the case and it is not possible to uphold the disallowance only because such disallowance was made in the assessments for the earlier years. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT (Appeals). The appeal is dismissed.
............
|
