|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 274 Records
-
1990 (1) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products ... ... ... ... ..... of the finished product and sub-rule (2) of Rule 57-0 further makes it clear that a manufacturer, who has filed a declaration in terms of sub-rule (1) may after obtaining the acknowledgement aforesaid (emphasis supplied) take credit of money on the inputs. A plain reading of the Rule would make it clear that filing a declaration is a condition precedent and it is only after filing a declaration and intimating the Department the input which the manufacturer intends to use, which would presumably be only prospectively and only after satisfying the Assistant Collector of Central Excise with reference to any information which he may require and obtaining the acknowledgement may take the credit of money on the inputs. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the plea of the learned counsel in regard to the availment of credit on input viz. Cotton Seed Oil in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, affirm the impugned order appealed against and dismiss the appeal.
-
1990 (1) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Short Landing ... ... ... ... ..... ustoms authorities. The Bombay High Court in ldquo Varun Shipping case rdquo (cited above) has also emphasised the relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value of survey carried out by qualified surveyors. The West Regional Bench in the ruling cited above has held that the survey is a contemporaneous document and ldquo though the Customs officers were not associated with the draft survey, the survey report cannot be discarded merely on these grounds rdquo . Therefore, following the ratio of the above rulings and also keeping in mind that no definite finding has been given by the authorities below that the shortages did not take place, I am inclined to think that the appellant would be entitled to remission of duty in respect of the shortage in question on the basis of the survey report, which is admittedly in existence and is in favour of the appellant. In this view of the matter I set aside the impugned order appealed against and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
1990 (1) TMI 184 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit an admissibility ... ... ... ... ..... processing materials, machinery, plant equipment, tools, stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or lubricants in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in the generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power. rdquo In view of the wide amplitude of the words lsquo in or in relation rsquo to the manufacture of specified finished product under Rule 57A, it can be said in the light of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court that Aluminium sheets are used in relation to the manufacture of the goods which are specified products covered by the Notification issued under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. This Tribunal in the case of Graphite Anodes has also held that MODVAT credit is admissible for the same as inputs. Following the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court ruling as also that of this Tribunal, we hold that the appellants are eligible for the benefit of MODVAT credit as availed of by them, and we allow the appeal.
-
1990 (1) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
MODVAT credit admissible in respect of duty payments effected subsequent to the stage of clearance
-
1990 (1) TMI 181 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - Actual users ... ... ... ... ..... 6 List-8, Part-I, although the same has not been contended before the original authority. The Ld. SDR rsquo s plea that he is not an actual user and his item is a restricted one in terms of the policy, is not sustainable, as in such a situation if the department had felt that the order of the Additional Collector was defective, an appeal should have been preferred by them. At this stage when the appeal is confined to the limited issues spelt out in the adjudication order, the department rsquo s representative cannot bring in other issues for consideration and plead for de novo consideration. On the basis of the order issued by the Additional Collector, the finding is that the consignment is not covered by Appendix-6, Item-I and hence contravened the ITC Policy. On this the appeal preferred by the appellant is found to be admissible in view of the findings as stated supra. Therefore, the order of the Additional Collector is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1990 (1) TMI 179 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ving regard to the above detailed narration of events, we are surprised that the Collector has explained the delay as due to non-availability of the original records and the time taken in reconstructing the file on the basis of the duplicate set of documents called for from the respondents. As may be seen from the narration of events, the respondents had supplied copies of the required documents not once or twice but six times. Even presuming that the relevant records of the Customs House had been misplaced or not available, the records of the Collr. (Appeals) would have been available wherein all the required documents would have been found. We cannot accept the ground urged as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the result, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. 5. The Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Chairman, CBEC, for such action as he may deem fit.
-
1990 (1) TMI 175 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
MODVAT Credit on the escalation value ... ... ... ... ..... y because of the timing of its payment or lack of Gate Passes. Duty maybe paid subsequent to the time of removal from the factory for a variety of reasons like finalisation of provisional assessments, short levy due to mistake on the part of the assessee or even the department etc. In such cases, it will be entirely wrong to deny the benefit of Modvat Credit in respect of such duty payments. The specific provisions of Rule 57E, after its amendment from 1-3-1987 does not go against the substantive provisions of Rule SPA which is the basic authority for the Modvat scheme. The amended provisions of Rule 57E are not by way of expanding the scope of Rule 57A. They are in the nature of a clarification only and the benefit in question would be available right from 1-3-1986 when the Modvat scheme was introduced. 7. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the appeal which we dismiss and uphold the order of the Collector (Appeals), as already pronounced in the open Court on 12-1-1990.
-
1990 (1) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... goods imported do not satisfy the conditions as they do not form the sets they cannot be used as such without disturbing their present packing and they are not in the requisite proportions to manufacture the end-product as they are in bulk. They have submitted that the imported goods do not form sets as contemplated in Section Note 3 to Section IV of CTA 1975 for classification and hence they have contended that each item of goods shall have to be classified under the appropriate heading of CTA 1975 on merits. 10. The Trade Notice ibid clarifies that Polyols and Isocynates should be assessed to duty individually on merits even if they are imported in the same Bill-of-Entry. 11. In view of the position, the contention of the appellant has to be upheld and the appeal has to be allowed. The appellants are entitled for assessment on merits as contended by them and would not to be covered by Section Note 3 to Section VI as held by the authorities below. 12. The appeal is allowed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... nd after going through the records, we modify our earlier order No. A/219/89-NRB, dated 28-6-1989 deleting the last two sentences of paragraph 13 and the whole of paragraph 14 of the said order. To this extent the ROM application is allowed. This decision has been pronounced in the open court. 4. The following para may be added as para 14 in our order dated 28-6-1989 - ldquo 14. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh did not violate the principles of natural justice by not allowing the facility of cross-examination of the accountant of the appellants rsquo firm. The appeal should now be heard on merits on other grounds, other than the denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the cross-examination of the accountant was not allowed by the Collector. For this purpose, the appeal be listed for hearing before the regular Bench of the North Regional Bench. The appeal not to remain part-heard. rdquo
-
1990 (1) TMI 171 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Imports - Additional import licence ... ... ... ... ..... he appellant can take benefit of 186 (7) only if the goods were imported during the normal validity of the licence or if the revalidation was done without the above condition. The appellant got the licence revalidated and the conditions mentioned therein are binding on the appellant. The argument of the learned Advocate that the scope of the revalidation cannot be extended to nullify the two benefits available both under 186(6) and 186(7) cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the appellant can take the benefit in terms of the revalidated licence itself and not anything extraneous to the same. The question of nullifying the other benefits does not arise in this case. Hence, in these circumstances, the orders of the learned adjudicating authority as per Point No. 1 is in accordance with law. In view of this finding on Point No. 1, it is not necessary to decide Point No. 2. 9. In the result, this appeal filed by the appellants fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
-
1990 (1) TMI 170 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Drugs - Canalised item ... ... ... ... ..... against statutory provisions, the same cannot be made as a ground of such an order of confiscation. However, we are not called upon to decide on this question for the simple reason that no such past practice is established in this case. However, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the orders passed by the learned Collector in this regard. But we had taken into consideration that the materials imported are for the purpose of manufacture of some essential drugs and taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances in this case, we are of the opinion that the redemption fine can be suitably reduced to Rs. 35,000/- only instead of Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 35,000/- only. We also feel that this is not a fit case where penalty should be imposed. We therefore set aside the order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant. Subject to these modifications, this appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 169 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ntil the contrary is proved and established by the appellant. The learned Collector in his order also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. Page 1296 -F.N. Roy v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta wherein it was held that there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to personal hearing on merits even when the appeal is time barred. Hence the Collector has no power to extend the time limit beyond a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of the Assistant Collector by the appellants. It is not shown by the appellant that an appeal was filed in time. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Collector holding that the appeal having been filed beyond the period of limitation is barred under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rejection of the appeal, therefore, is in order and no grounds are made out to interfere with the same and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
-
1990 (1) TMI 168 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... t of suppression, he has to discharge the show cause notice issued by him. The notice for adjudication before him is the one which was issued by himself alleging fraud or suppression etc. invoking the extended period. Obviously and admittedly the notice issued by the Supdt. was not the one before him for adjudication. It is also not open for him to revive the show cause notice issued by the Supdt. once he has specifically stated that this show cause notice issued by himself is ldquo in place of rdquo the show cause notice dated 25-6-1986 issued by the Supdt. In this view of the matter, we accept the argument of the learned advocate Shri Willingdon Christian on this point of law and hold that the order of the Additional Collector seeking to enforce the demand limited to a period of six months from the date of issue of the earlier notice by the Supdt. which has already been replaced by another notice, is illegal and therefore not sustainable. In the result, we allow the appeal.
-
1990 (1) TMI 161 - ITAT PUNE
Capital Gains, Computation Of ... ... ... ... ..... our opinion, then has to be considered for the purpose of deduction under section 48(2). The pretation which we have made will achieve the object of the object of the Act. The object of the act is to augment the savings by way of investment in various securities, fixed deposit in Banks, etc. Full exemption has been granted if the entire net consideration is invested and proportionate deduction is allowed where the investment is made party. If the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is accepted, then it would amount to allowing deduction even against the income which is not chargeable to tax. Hence, the contention of assessee cannot be accepted. The view which we have taken is also fortified by two decisions in the case of Capt. K.C. Saigal v. ITO 1995 54 ITD 488 (Delhi) and in the case of Mrs. Pushpa B. Sheth v. Asstt. CIT 1994 50 ITD 314 (Bom.). 7. In view of the above discussions, the order of CIT(A) is upheld. The appeal of assessee is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 158 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment Proceedings, Inaccurate Particulars, Penalty Proceedings, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... acceptable to the department. However we are only concerned with the question whether penalty for concealment of income is warranted or not. It is admitted that each case law stands on its own peculiar facts and therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the cases relied upon by the parties. In view of the facts and reasons stated above, we are satisfied that there was no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. Therefore, penalty is not warranted for these years. 16. However, for the sake of completion of proceedings, we shall consider the question of quantum of penalty also. If at all penalty was to be levied, penalty should be levied only with reference to tax base as held in Rasoolji Buxji s case, R. Kuppuswami Chetty s case, C.H. Sheth s case and Capital Cinema s case. 17. In the result, we uphold the orders of the first appellate authority cancelling the penalties for these years. The appeals are dismissed
-
1990 (1) TMI 155 - ITAT PATNA
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Valuation Date, Valuer's Report ... ... ... ... ..... f Smt. Nirmala Birla v. WTO 1976 105 ITR 483 (FB), where it has been held that originally notice issued u/s. 17(1) (a) can be treated as notice u/s. 17(1)(b) provided the same is issued within the period of limitation of four years. In view of the above matter, we have no hesitation to hold that where notices are issued within four years of the assessment years under appeal, proceedings are valid and should be confirmed on this issue. We have also given our careful consideration in respect of valuation of the jewellery in the relevant asst. years. The impugned jewelleries were valued at Rs. 36,000 on 31-3-1976 and after 10 years it was valued at Rs. 1,95,650. The increase is, therefore, about Rs. 1,60,000. Following the straight line method, we compute the increase Rs. 16,000 per year. The WTO is directed to reduce the value of the jewelleries by Rs. 16,000 in each of the asst. years from the date of valuation regressively. 11. In the result, the appeals are allowed pro tanto
-
1990 (1) TMI 153 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ithin a short period, the assessee had also filed the return, Under these circumstances, he accepted that there was a reasonable cause. He cancelled the penalty. 4. The Department s case is that the assessee is a habitual defaulter and this was not considered by the AAC. I agree with the Department that the assessee might be a habitual defaulter. But we are concerned with the reasons for this particular assessment year. The AAC has found that the firms in which she was a partner, had filed returns only on 29th March, 1984. This fact has not been controverted. That being so, the assessee, a partner in those firms, can file the return only thereafter. This is what has appealed to the AAC as reasonable cause. I must accept that this would amount to reasonable cause. The fact that the assessee was a defaulter, therefore, is not a factor to be taken into account for this year. Under these circumstances, the Departmental appeal will have to be dismissed. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 150 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Appeal To CIT(A), Orders Prejudicial To Interests, Plant And Machinery, Rate Of Depreciation, Retrospective Effect, Written Down Value
-
1990 (1) TMI 149 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Investment Company, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... tax Act. Under section 4(5) the value of the assets transferred under an irrevocable transfer is liable to be included in computing the net wealth only when the power to revoke is exercised and not until then. This is because until the power is exercised the asset really belongs to the transferee. Moreover, under section 2(e)(v) any interest in property which is not available for six years is excluded from the definition of an asset . Since the transferee had the right to hold the property for a period of more than six years it is the asset of the transferee during the period and consequently it cannot be an asset of the assessee during the same period. In the circumstances, the value of the jewellery transferred by the assessee has to be excluded from the net wealth as on the valuation date within the period prior to the revocation of the transfer. The Wealth-tax Officer is directed to exclude the value of the jewellery and re-compute the net wealth. 5. The appeal is allowed
-
1990 (1) TMI 148 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... ty for the fudging of the accounts which has not been proved to have been made without her tacit approval. Whatever the manner in which the business was conducted she cannot abdicate her responsibility in filing the return as it amounts to a verified statement in respect of which no shifting of blame is possible without admitting gross or wilful neglect if not fraud. Even if it is claimed that the assessee simply adopted the figures furnished by the employees it would amount to a wilful default because there was conscious carelessness as to whether or not the assessee was doing her duty. see-Clixby v. Pountney (Inspector of Taxes) 1969 72 ITR 340 (Ch.D) . Therefore the furnishing of the inaccurate particulars of the income is attributable to the gross and wilful negligence of the assessee and the imposition of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is, therefore, justified on the facts of the case. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the CIT (Appeals). The appeals are dismissed
............
|
