|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 265 Records
-
1986 (9) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Waste and scrap ... ... ... ... ..... of 1974 cannot be held to be beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, because, the pre-condition of the excisability of the articles mentioned therein, namely, waste and scrap, is in the manufacture ability of those articles. Since the production of waste and scrap is an integral part and an inevitable incident of the manufacturing process. Parliament has the legislative competence to make waste and scrap excisable under Entry 84 of list-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which relates to duties of excise on tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India , except intoxicants and narcotics. If we take note of the above principle laid down by the highest court in the land, I cannot accept and countenance the argument put forth, by the learned counsel for the petitioner and his attempts to derive support from the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court of Bombay. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Appeal wrongly filed to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... rtment is aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal that it had not rendered a specific finding as to lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal, it should have independently questioned that order instead of requiring the petitioner to take the chestnut out of fire. For these reasons, I reject this argument of the learned Counsel for the Department. 14. In the result, the offending part of the order directing the transfer of the matter before the file of the Central Government as done under the impugned order of the Tribunal alone is quashed. This obviously means that the 5th respondent cannot hear the revision any more. In view of the finding rendered by the Tribunal that the proper forum is the Central Government under Section 35-EE of the Act, the appeal papers filed before the Tribunal by the Department will be returned to the Department for proper presentation, before the forum having jurisdiction, if so advised. 15. Accordingly the writ will stand allowed. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Imports - Taxable event - Additional duty - Estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... e rate of additional duty from Rs.1.32 per kg. to Rs.2.37 per kg. is neither bad in law nor does it attract the rule of promissory estoppel and the said enhanced rate being in force when the Bills of Entry were presented in January 1980 either actually or under the deeming provision of the proviso to Section 15(1) the writ petitioners are liable to pay additional duty at the said enhanced rate of Rs. 2.37 per kg. on the goods imported in view of Section 15(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 59. The Rules issued are, accordingly, discharged and interim orders, if any, do stand vacated. 60. Respondents may now realise the additional duty from the petitioners at the enhanced rate of Rs.2.37 per kg. by enforcing the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners and by any other legal method. 61. The verbal prayer made by Mr. Bageria, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, for stay of operation of this order is considered and rejected. 62. There will be no order for costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... of that opportunity by preferring appeal before the Tribunal concerned. It is an admitted fact that such an appeal is pending before the Tribunal as on date. Considering all these aspects of the case, we are of the view that since an effective alternative remedy has been provided and is availed of, this petition under Article 226 cannot be entertained. 16. For all these reasons, this Special Civil Application is dismissed. Notice discharged. 17. Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that sufficient time be given to the petitioner for approaching the Tribunal for the purpose of getting necessary stay provided under Sec. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Taking into consideration this representation, interim relief granted earlier is continued for a period of four weeks from this date. We hope that the Tribunal will dispose of the application, if any, filed under Sec. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, within four weeks from this date.
-
1986 (9) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Scraps - Brass scrap - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... ing Counsel, the residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff may be attracted. This stand is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said circumstances, the levy of the basic customs duty has got to be upheld and only the levy of the additional duty relatable to Item 26-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff has got to be discountenanced, and since additional duty could be levied, invoking the residuary Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, the matter requires re-examination by the first authority, who is the third respondent in both the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed and the matter will stand remitted to the file of the third respondent, to quantify the additional duty relatable to Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and refund the excess duty, if any, after such quantification. The third respondent is directed to do so within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT AT CLACUTTA
Import - Warehoused goods - Rate of duty - Estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... hat the impugned notification was bad in law since it was issued with retrospective effect. But this contention does not appear to have much substance in it since the notification was made operative only from the date of its issue and not retrospectively from an earlier date. The fact that it was issued with effect from a date earlier than the expiry of the previous notification does not make it bad in law since, as already stated earlier, the Central Government is empowered to do so in public interest. 38. Thus all the contentions raised by Mr. Gupta failing, the writ application fails too. 39. The Rule issued upon the respondents be, accordingly, discharged and the interim order do stand vacated. 40. The respondents may now realise the balance of customs duty from the petitioners at the rates prescribed in the impugned notification by encashment of the Bank guarantee and/or by any other legal method including enforcement of the bond, if any. 41. No order is made for costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Art. 226 of the Constitution But then the court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. The observations, quoted above, apply to the facts of the present case fully. Neither could anything be shown to us nor we find any justification for permitting the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy provided for by the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the preliminary ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. There is substance in the argument of the petitioners Counsel that a direction be issued to the Collector, before whom appeals are filed, to decide the appeal of the petitioner, when filed, within five months, we issue a direction to this effect. With these observations we dismiss the writ petition summarily.
-
1986 (9) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Steel-Alloy steel high carbon steel - Stainless steel circles - Interpretation of statute ... ... ... ... ..... construe the provision of the particular statute, with which we are concerned and the principle is well settled that no tax can be imposed or excluded by analogy. 4. Learned counsel would also submit that the specifications of stainless coils and circles have been given by the Indian Standard Institution, and that also deals with circles separately. We are not concerned with the standard dimensions for sheets , coils and circles . We are here more concerned with the question as to whether sheets could take in circles also. Hence, no inspiration could be drawn from the said specifications for finding a solution to the question in issue. I have found no reason to exclude circles from the purview of sheets occurring in Heading 73.15(2). 5. For all these reasons, I am not able to persuade myself to interfere with the orders passed by the second respondent, which are being impugned in these writ petitions, and accordingly the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. No costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the term 'value' was not in Sec. 111(m) of the Act before the amendment but that will make no difference as according as even without the term 'value' a mis-description could be interpreted to be a mis-description on the basis of value stated and ultimately the goods found to be of a higher value?
Held that:- It is not in dispute that a penal provision has to be strictly construed and reading Sec. 111(m) before the amendment is not possible to draw an inference that any difference in material particulars may be referable to 'value'. This argument therefore cannot be accepted. The scheme of Sec. 111(m) as* it stood then nowhere referred to the difference of value as one of the ingredients which may attract this provision. In such a situation therefore if it was not the specific intention of the provision, a difference in respect of value therefore could not be said to attract this provision and on that basis no penalty could be imposed.
The appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Collector, Board, Central Government and the High Court are hereby set aside. The penalty imposed on the appellants under Sec. 111(m) read with Sec. 111(d) is hereby quashed. The appellant shall be entitled to get refund of the penalty if already deposited.
-
1986 (9) TMI 77 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on under section 256 of the 1961 Act to the High Court was contemplated only in those cases where the Tribunal had refused to state the case on the ground that no question of law arises and not in those cases where the Tribunal had rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by time. Coming to the fourth application, namely, the application in regard to the assessment year 1978-79, it may be pointed out that it is true that Reference Application No. 155 of 1984 which was the application in regard to this assessment year had been decided on merits after condoning the delay, but it is equally true that the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on findings which are essentially findings of fact based on appraisal of evidence. In view of those findings, it is not possible to take the view that any question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. All these four applications are accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... t may further be pointed out that it is settled law that no one has vested right in the forum. The assessee cannot claim to have a substantive right to have the penalty proceedings finalised by a particular officer notwithstanding the fact that the jurisdiction of that officer has by a statutory provision been taken away before final orders could be passed in the penalty proceedings. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 1. Suffice it to say that, so far as this case is concerned, it was a case dealing with the quantum of penalty and not with the jurisdiction of an officer who was competent to pass an order of penalty. The said case, in our opinion, is clearly distinguishable. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The Department shall be entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1986 (9) TMI 75 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... h related to this very assessee for the same assessment year, i.e., 1968-69. Since this court has held that the expenditure for repair of the furnaces was revenue expenditure and was deductible as such, that opinion must prevail in the present case as well. The expenditure was obviously revenue in nature. That being so, it was a deductible expense. Following the view taken by this court in the aforesaid case CIT v. Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd. 1986 157 ITR 584 (Pat), we hereby hold that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the entire amount of Rs. 5,02,654 was deductible for computing surtax liability. The reference is answered accordingly. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1986 (9) TMI 74 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Contribution To Gratuity Fund, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... urt in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585. Viewed in that light, the following question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in law justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s order reducing the chargeable profits by Rs. 76,760 on account of contribution to the employees gratuity fund ? We accordingly direct the Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, to draw up a statement of the case and refer to this court for its opinion the question of law stated above. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 73 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ct, 1910, read with the award dated December 30, 1976 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the entire interest of Rs. 2,39,951 was liable to be taxed in the assessment year 1978-79, and not as income of the different previous years on the basis of accrual of such income yearwise ? Question No. 3 has not been pressed by counsel for the applicant before us. This application is allowed in part. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 72 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d as income-tax Reference No. 84 of 1978. It was decided by a Division Bench of this court on 28th March, 1980 (Addl. CIT v. Ram Kripal Tripathi 1980 125 ITR 408). The two questions mentioned above which had been referred to this court were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The decision given by the Tribunal in the case giving rise to Income-tax Reference No. 84 of 1978, referred to above, has been relied on by the Tribunal in deciding the appeal in the instant case. The question which has been referred to this court in the instant case is identical to the two questions which were answered by this court in ITR No. 84 of 1978. The decision of this court in that case is reported as Addl. CIT v. Ram Kripal Tripathi 1980 125 ITR 408. For the reasons recorded in that decision, we answer the question referred to in this case also in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ection 254(2) of the Act on the ground that it was virtually a review application ? The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, is accordingly directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. The applicant shall be entitled to Costs assessed at Rs. 125.
-
1986 (9) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Guest House, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... f the nature of guest house within the meaning of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the expenditure in respect of them should be allowed as deduction ? The application is accordingly allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... able question of law arises out of the appellate order of the Tribunal. This application is accordingly allowed in part to this extent that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. The application in regard to the other questions is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... count of the Tribunal s failure to fully consider and appreciate the relevant facts ? We accordingly direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1986 (9) TMI 67 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner of Income-tax under section 263(1) of the Act. The order of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial for not having taken note of the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. It was prejudicial to the Revenue, as the necessary enquiry had not been made by the Income-tax Officer. In that view of the matter, the second question also has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the case of Pushpa Devi 1987 164 ITR 639 , we clearly held that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rambha Devi, i. e., the present case, was not correct. We reiterate that view once again. For the reasons stated above, the references are thus disposed of. Both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
....
|
