|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 175 Records
-
1982 (1) TMI 195 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... of excise duty. The court further held that Rule 13 is procedural and grants additional facility to the person who removes the goods under bond without payment of duty. But this facility cannot be equated with substantive right of granting exemption from payment of duty by notification under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court further observed that the quantum of duty or rebate has to be determined by reference to Rule 12 and the notification issued thereunder and that the expression without payment of duty does not mean export without the liability to pay duty. 5. In view of the above Government hold that the impugned order of the Appellate Collector is not correct in law. The Government accordingly set aside the impugned order-in-appeal in exercise of the powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and restore the nine orders dated 13-8-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division ‘M’, Bombay.
-
1982 (1) TMI 194 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... or any verification by the departmental officers within the said time. 5. In view of above the Government agree with the petitioners that since they had intimated the department about the receipt of the goods within 24 hours of such receipt they have not contravened the provisions of Rule 56A read with Rule 173K. As such Government hold that lower authorities were not justified in levelling charge of contravention of the said rules on the petitioners and confiscating the goods in question. As regards the explanation given by the petitioners about the shortage of 1,400 capsules however Government hold that there is no provision in Rule 56A to give credit in respect of the duty paid on the goods lost and as such they could not escape their liability for payment of duty on the same. 6. The Government accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application except to the extent that it relates to demand of duty on the shortage in the goods received.
-
1982 (1) TMI 193 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... what is done subsequently to the goods, unless they are subjected to a further process of manufacture. The Assistant Collector has himself conceded in his order in original that it was not the department’s is case that repacking of duty paid oils into smaller containers would amount to manufacture within the scope of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Since the petitioners had also been selling the goods in bulk at the factory gate as seen from the invoices filed by them, the goods in question cleared in bulk after paying duty on the value applicable to bulk clearances are not in the Government’s view liable to any further differential duty on account of their being repacked at the destination after clearance i.e. after they are out of Central Excise Control on payment of duty. 5. In view of the above Government allow the revision application on this short point without going into the other contentions about the validity of the demands.
-
1982 (1) TMI 192 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... in the Item 33E of the Central Excise Tariff. Government further observe that unlike electricity supply meters which are fixed in the premises of the consumers of electricity, the said Rotary sub-standard meter is a portable testing kit. Government also observe that according to the I.S.I. specification No. 722 (Part 1) of 1929 the scope of electricity supply meters did not inter alia extend to Rotary sub-standard meters, It is, therefore, evident that Rotary sub-standard meters are not recognised as electricity supply meters by both the people in the trade as well as technical literature. 4. In view of the above the Appellate Collector has rightly held that the impugned goods are not classifiable under Item 33E of Central Excise Tariff. Government, therefore, drop the review proceedings initiated vide show cause notice dated 28-4-80. This order is, however, passed without prejudice to the classification of the impugned goods under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.
-
1982 (1) TMI 191 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... llector had approved a general classification list prior to the production of the relevant documents would not lead to the inference that the Assistant Collector who is the proper officer was satisfied about the duty paid nature of the fibre in question and, therefore, the plea that the clearances at nil rate of duty were with the knowledge of the Staff of the Department is of no significance. 6. As regards the misquoting of Notification No. 85 of 77 in the show cause notice in place of Notification No. 133 of 77, the Government observe that it is also of no consequence especially in view of the fact that the petitioners were heard before passing the order-in-original and that the Notification No. 133 of 77 was the only Notification with which the goods in question were concerned thereby leaving no scope for any doubt. 7. In view of the above, the Government do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly reject the revision application.
-
1982 (1) TMI 190 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... n craft paper packs with polythene liner and which is not sold to third parties but is used in the petitioners’ factory or factories in the State for regeneration into fluid milk does not attract and is not liable to the excise duty levied by Item 1B introduced by the Finance Act, 1969 in Schedule I to the Central Excises and Salt Act. It is, however, not in dispute that if any sales are effected to the third parties of such milk powder in any containers including the craft paper bags with polythene liner, they are liable to excise duty.” The Government respectfully agree with the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and hold that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case the ratio of the aforesaid decision would apply to this case. 8. In view of the above, the Government allow the revision application and drop the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
-
1982 (1) TMI 189 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... 4. In the petitioners case it is open to them to contest the decision of Assistant Collector before the Appellate Collector even if the Assistant Collector’s decision follows the Board’s advice. Needless to say that Board’s advice is not binding on the lower authorities who have to act quasi-judicially. Government, therefore, hold that the particular revision application is inadmissible as a premature petition. It is dismissed accordingly.
-
1982 (1) TMI 188 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... of Notification No. 118/75 should be available and may be allowed to them and that ‘pelletisation’ did not constitute a process of manufacture so as to attract Central Excise duty, particularly when the pelletisation plant was not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act. They have also raised the point that the demand was barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. 3. Government accept the petitioner’s contention that no duty would be attracted on pellets made in their pelletisation plant, which is not a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act. Government consider that the ratio of the Government’s decision in the case of M/s. Hathi Gold Mines., vide order No. 712 of 1979 (copy enclosed) will apply to the petitioner’s case. 4. Government accordingly set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and allow the Revision Application on the above short point alone, with consequential relief to the petitioners.
-
1982 (1) TMI 187 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... for this period for fixing the base period and base clearance was filed by the petitioner on 25-3-77. In other words the petitioners had already staked their claim in time. They could not therefore be blamed for submitting a claim bill late because by executive instructions, the authorities had prescribed that the base clearance and base period should be fixed by the Assistant Collector on a declaration made in this behalf by the manufacturers and the Assistant Collector took time to do and he determined the ‘tease clearance’ and ‘base year’ only on 22-7-78 i.e. more than a year after the petitioners filed their declaration. 4. In the circumstances of the case Government hold that judging by the date of declaration the petitioners’ claim cannot be said to be hit by time bar. Government accordingly allow the revision application and direct that the petitioners’ claim should be dealt with afresh by the Assistant Collector on its merits.
-
1982 (1) TMI 186 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... nalty could not therefore, be legally imposed on him. 4. The Board has carefully gone through the records of the case, the submissions made in the Written Memoranda of appeals and those at the time of personal hearing. 5. The Board finds that the recovery witnesses were not produced for cross-examination even though the Advocate for the appellants had made a written request for the same. The adjudication proceedings stand vitiated as the principles of natural justice have thus not been followed. 6. The Board accordingly remands the entire case for de novo adjudication, except for what is set out in the para following. 7. The Board observes that since Bishan Chand Gupta had not been asked to show cause as to why personal penalty should not be imposed on him under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order of the Additional Collector in so far as it relates to the personal penalty imposed on Bishan Chand Gupta is not valid and is accordingly set aside.
-
1982 (1) TMI 185 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions are to be issued by the State Government and the Commissioner at their own instance and not at the instance of third parties like the petitioner-a dealer under the Act. 6.. I do not think that any right is conferred on the petitioner under any of the provisions of the Act to seek the type of clarification which the petitioner has sought from the Commissioner. There is no right in the petitioner to seek such clarification, much less is there any duty cast on the Commissioner to clarify or dispose of the application, as made out by the petitioner. This writ petition is a frivolous exercise involving unnecessarily the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. Whatever the petitioner wants to contend having regard to the meaning of item 146 in the Second Schedule to the Act and its effect, he may do so before the appropriate assessing authority. 7.. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed without rule being issued.
-
1982 (1) TMI 184 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pted by the Bench, when they rendered their decision that cone winding machines fitted with electric motors cannot be regarded as electrical goods or electrical machinery. We do not think that anything which had been decided in that case alters our conclusion in this case in any way, in so far as we held that monobloc pump sets are electrical goods. We grant that at the time when we delivered the judgment we completely missed the inclusion of the expression machinery in item 41. We based our conclusion out and out on the supposition that entry 41 only refers to electrical goods. The addition of the expression machinery only makes our conclusion a fortiori. We have no doubt whatever that a monobloc pumping set can be regarded as electrical goods and since it is an item of machinery, it falls under both sub-heads electrical goods as well as electrical machinery . We do not think that anything that has been urged in the additional argument tends to alter our earlier conclusion.
-
1982 (1) TMI 183 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the dealer under section 22 of the Act. Referring to section 11, the standing counsel urged that no revision was contemplated against an order made under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Act. It is not necessary to express any on this question in the present case for, even on merits, the contention of the counsel for the dealer has to be rejected. I sum, the conclusion is inescapable that on the language used by the legislature, the Tribunal has full discretion under sub-section (6) of section 10 of the Act to decide upon the extent of the disputed tax of which recovery may be stayed by it during the pendency of an appeal before it. Thus viewed, the revision deserve to be dismissed though without any order as to costs. The counsel for the dealer has stated that on account of the pendency of these revisions, the dealer was unable to fulfill the terms imposed upon by the Tribunal. It will be open to the dealer to approach the Tribunal for necessary relief in this respect.
-
1982 (1) TMI 182 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held that rule 8-D of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, is merely directory and not mandatory and the assessee is entitled to get the exemption under section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, even without production of declarations in form C obtained from the purchasing dealer. This case was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Ganeshdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Miscellaneous Petition No. 562 of 1973). We respectfully agree with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is that for purposes of section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, it is sufficient to produce only the certificate in form E-I and it is not obligatory to produce the original of the declaration in form C received from the purchasing dealer, as stipulated by rule S-D of the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957. 3.. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1982 (1) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on raised and considered by the Tribunal is entirely irrelevant for the penalty proceedings. Be it noted in this connection that the assessments allowing deductions on the ground that the sales of the goods in question were resales of goods purchased, have become final and that it is not shown that there is any way in which they can be lawfully reopened. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal s decision ordering remand to the Sales Tax Officer to consider the question whether the assessee was liable to pay sales tax in view of the decision in Pyare Lal Malhotra s case 1976 37 STC 319 (SC), is not in accordance with law. The questions referred for our opinion are therefore answered as follows Question No. (1) In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. (2) In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1982 (1) TMI 180 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the strength of its registration certificate free of tax and instead of selling the same sent them to other places outside the State of Punjab on consignment basis in order to avoid sales tax, which could not be permitted in view of the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. Thus, I am of the considered view that the petitioner did misuse the registration certificate by first purchasing the commodities on its strength and did not pay purchase tax and then tried to evade sales tax by sending those goods outside the Punjab State on consignment basis, and in such a situation, the Assessing Authority has rightly levied tax on such goods for the misuse of the registration certificate under the second proviso to section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. 4.. No other point is urged. 5.. For the reasons recorded, this petition is dismissed. As there is no representation on behalf of the State, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 179 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... diction. The question was whether it was open to the Commissioner of Sales Tax to revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner when the dealer s second appeal against that order was pending before the Tribunal. The Supreme Court took the view that it could not be done. The present is the case at a higher pedestal. Here, the order of assessment was affirmed by the revising authority, the supreme authority at the relevant time, on merits. It was not open to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) to have set it aside subsequently while dealing with an appeal against the order of the assessing authority made under section 30. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was clearly illegal. The Tribunal erred in affirming it by its impugned order. The revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 17th February, 1981, and that of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dated 8th May, 1979, are set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 178 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ite of such disclosures, if the goods are to be detained, such an action is illegal. The notice issued nowhere states that the authorities were not satisfied with the name of the owner of the goods as disclosed by the driver. Hence the detention of the goods, under the circumstances of this case as hitherto disclosed, being illegal, the impugned order is set aside. If after securing the representations of the petitioner and after scrutiny of all the relevant documents, it be found that the goods have resulted in a sale which would fall within the purview of Act 1 of 1959, the disposal of this writ petition would not stand in the way of the respondents proceedings to assess the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Hence W. P. No. 4160 of 1979 is allowed. No costs. In W.P. No. 6143 of 1979, the petitioner having sought for a declaration as above referred to, in the light of the orders passed in W.P. No. 4160 of 1979, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1982 (1) TMI 177 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner was not a partner in the firm and hence not liable for the sales tax dues assessed against the firm. It was then submitted that it was incumbent upon the Sales Tax Officer to have served the notice of the assessment proceedings on the petitioner. Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules provides the mode of effecting service. In 1969 when the sales tax proceedings were being conducted, rule 77 did not provide that notice of assessment proceedings should be served on each partner of a firm. It merely provided service of notice by registered post on the firm at its address. This provision was duly complied with by the Sales Tax Officer in sending notices by registered post twice on the address of the firm. There was hence no flaw in the procedure adopted by the Sales Tax Officer in conducting the assessment proceedings. We are hence not satisfied that there is any merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1982 (1) TMI 176 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o whether satranji is carpet. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision in State of Orissa v. Modi Stores 1969 24 STC 255 is not a precedent which would not permit this Division Bench to take a different view. We are, therefore, of the view that nothing has been said in State of Orissa v. Modi Stores 1969 24 STC 255 which would preclude us from expressing the view we now adopt. 6.. On the analysis indicated, we come to the conclusion that satranji is not carpet nor are asani and duree carpets so as to invoke taxability at the rate prescribed for luxury articles. On the other hand, they would be tax-free articles being covered by the other entry referred to by the Tribunal. The questions therefore are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. But since there was a precedent on which the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal had relied upon, we think it appropriate to leave the parties to bear their own costs. BEHERA, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
........
|
