|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 445 Records
-
2001 (12) TMI 568 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Inputs ... ... ... ... ..... ast Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 358 (T) and relied upon the decision of Indian Oxygen Ltd., supra. We also find that a similar view has been taken in the Final Order of this Tribunal No. 1821/98, dated 16-9-98 in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd., which was heard after the matter was recalled vide Miscellaneous Order No. 467/98, dated 6-8-98. We, therefore, find that the matter is no longer res integra and applying the ratio of these decisions, we find that the Order-in-Appeal impugned before us are required to be set aside. We, therefore, set aside the Order-in-Appeals impugned and allow these appeals with consequential relief, if any, as per law. rdquo 3. emsp In the facts and circumstances since the issue involved has already been considered and concluded by the Tribunal in the earlier order referred to above, following the same, I do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Department. In the result appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 567 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... ot pre-printed and hence Modvat credit cannot be extended. He submitted that the Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that procedural lapse should not come in the way of denial of substantial justice. 4. emsp On the other hand, Smt. Radha Arun, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that there is no finding of the authority below with reference to duty paid nature of documents. 5. emsp I have carefully considered the matter. In view of the facts and circumstances and on submissions made by both sides, the matter with reference to the duty paid documents requires to be examined by the concerned jurisdictional adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the concerned adjudicating authority to examine the is shy sue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law on providing an opportunity to the party. The appellant may produce the evidence to substantiate their claims. Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 565 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... . It is, however, clarified that while permitting the credit, the Assistant Commissioner should do the proper scrutiny and the credit be permitted only after proper verification from the originating range. rdquo The Counsel said that in the instant case, since the Assistant Commissioner has not made any proper scrutiny and in the absence of proper verification, there was no justification to reject the permission. 3. emsp On going through the Board rsquo s Circular referred to above, the Departmental Representative has no objection to remand the matter to the concerned Assistant Commissioner to examine the matter as per the Board rsquo s Circular. In the facts and circumstances and on submissions made by both sides, the matter is remanded to concerned jurisdictional adjudicating authority to examine the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law on providing an opportunity to the party. 4. emsp Thus, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 563 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... finding that the Bus Duct is accessory/part of the machinery/plant has not been challenged in this appeal. Going by that finding, I have to hold that the Bus Duct is squarely covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Notification cited by ld. JDR has no bearing on this question. The period of dispute is December, 1995. Even for period prior to 23-7-96, the pre-existing provisions of Rule 57Q squarely covered accessories/parts of plants and machinery as capital goods. As rightly pointed out by ld. DR, the issue stands settled by the Tribunal rsquo s Larger Bench decision in Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra), which has been upheld by the Apex Court in department rsquo s appeal. It is also pertinent to note that the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Shanmugaraja Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., now relied on by the appellant, was specifically overruled by the Larger Bench in Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). All the grounds raised in this appeal have failed. The appeal is rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 561 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... sheets, chequered plates, etc. Accordingly the issue with reference to the item (iv) is dismissed as withdrawn. As regards the remaining items, I find that the matter requires to be re-examined since much water has been flown by developing case law on the point at issue. These items are required to be examined by adjudicating authority whether they are capital goods in terms of observations made by Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). Further he has to examine whether these items are used in the process of or in relation to process of manufacture of finished products. In view of these observations, I am remanding the matter to the original authority to examine the issue afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. The party may make use of this opportunity to substantiate his claim during the readjudication proceedings. Thus this appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 560 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ort of his contention he placed reliance on an order passed by a Two-Member Bench of this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/401-405/2001-NB(DB), dated 21-9-2001. 2. emsp In the light of the provisions contained under Rule 96ZP, in the nature of declaration given by the assessee opting for the procedure under Rule 96ZP and also in the light of the direction given by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the petition filed by the assessee we find it difficult, prima facie, to accept the view taken by the Bench in the above order. We, therefore, refer this matter for consideration by a Larger Bench. Post for hearing on 14-1-2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 557 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... e for capital goods credit. The above use of the goods has not been contested by the appellant in this appeal. As material-handling equipments used within the factory of production of final products were capital goods under Rule 57Q during the relevant period, the decision of the lower appellate authority requires to be upheld. The decision is well supported by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 2. emsp In view of the above position, this appeal has no merits and the same is rejected.
-
2001 (12) TMI 534 - ITAT JAIPUR
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... d income, and a direction by way of rectification to the effect that the income so determinable as assessed income be restricted to the returned income, the original appellate order may appropriately be treated as having an apparent mistake contained therein. Such a mistake needs be treated as rectifiable also for the reason that such a rectification yields an equilibrium of justice, without entailing grievance to any of the parties. In that view of the matter we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the Assessing Officer rsquo s petition under section 154. We therefore, reverse the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) and allow the Assessing Officer rsquo s petition filed under section 154 and direct that the assessed income determinable as a result of Ld. CIT(A) rsquo s appellate order dated 24-4-1995, if goes below returned income, then the same be restricted to the returned income. 16. In the result the revenue rsquo s appeal No. 1680/JP/95 is allowed as indicated above.
-
2001 (12) TMI 533 - ITAT CUTTACK
Business disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... d the rival contentions, and having perused copies of challans at pages 107 to 114 of the paper-book, we are inclined to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall give necessary relief to the assessee, after examining the necessary evidence and after obtaining necessary clarifications, in accordance with the law. 49. Ground No. 5 is thus allowed for statistical purposes. 50. As regards ground No. 6, as the matter is being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and he has to make fresh computation of income, after taking into account losses, if any, of the earlier years, no specific adjudication is required. No issue is raised under ground No. 7 and accordingly, no adjudication is required on this issue also. Ground Nos. 6 and 7 are, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. 51. In the result, appeal for the assessment year 1997-98 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 52. To sum up, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (12) TMI 530 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Department rsquo s contention that in the said decision, the Hon rsquo ble High Court had no occasion to consider the implications of the provisions of Explanation 4 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As is mentioned above, this decision has been affirmed by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Prithipal Singh and Co. rsquo s case (supra). As is pointed out by the ld. counsel, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in its decision in the case of CIT v. Varindra and Co. (supra), which pertained to a period after the insertion of Explanation 4 to section 271(1), the view expressed in the decision of Prithipal Singh and Co., affirmed by the Apex Court, has been followed. I would, therefore, accept the assessee rsquo s contention that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not exigible in law for the two assessment years under consideration. The penalty orders are cancelled. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 529 - ITAT RAJKOT
Mutual concern ... ... ... ... ..... opriate basis if the same cannot be bifurcated on the basis of actuals. We direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. 12. In the next ground, the assessee is aggrieved against not granting of expenses incurred for earning income when a specific claim was made in the return. This ground, though specifically raised before the CIT(A), the same is not dealt with by him. Hence, we remand this matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication with a direction to keep in mind our decision with regard to the grant of depreciation. 13. Next ground relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C was not pressed at the time of the hearing and hence the same is rejected as such. 14. In the last ground, the assessee is aggrieved for non-withdrawal of the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground also was not pressed at the time of hearing and hence the same is rejected as such. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 527 - ITAT NAGPUR
Block assessment in search cases ... ... ... ... ..... s to the deposit of Rs. 7,500 made by the assessee in her bank account treated as her undisclosed income by the Assessing Officer. 11. In this regard it is observed that the assessee was having her regular source of income upto assessment year 1991-92 and considering that her husband was earning regular income from salary as Executive with Kedia Group, it cannot be considered as abnormal for the assessee to accumulate a saving to the extent of Rs. 7,500. Moreover, as we have already deleted the other additions made by the Assessing Officer while deciding ground Nos. 2 and 3 of this appeal, this remaining addition of Rs. 7,500 being within the basic exemption limit, cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee because in that case the assessee was not required to file her return of income. We, therefore, delete this addition of Rs. 7,500 also. 12. Ground No. 5 is general seeking no specific decision from us. 13. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2001 (12) TMI 513 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Appeal to Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... ises only if the refund is admissible. 3. emsp On the other hand, Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned Advocate, for the respondent-company submitted that the assessments were provisional and as such, question of time-limit does not arise. 4. emsp Without going into the merits of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned letter dated 1-8-2001 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner by the Commissioner (Appeals), is not an appealable Order, as the Commissioner (Appeals) is not deciding any issue under the impugned letter. The Commissioner (Appeals) is seeking only verification of the documents for ascertaining as to whether there was any unjust enrichment, on the part of the respondent-company, if the appeal happens to be decided in their favour, in view of the fact that apparently, the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to refer the case back to the adjudicating authority with any direction. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as not maintainable.
-
2001 (12) TMI 512 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Financial hardship ... ... ... ... ..... debt as doubtful. The Counsel also pointed out that the appellant rsquo s factory has not been in production for a year. 3. emsp We have heard the learned SDR who pointed out that the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs ordered to be deposited was only in respect of goods proved to have been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. He also pointed out that the appellants had an outstanding credit of over Rs. 42 lakhs. 4. emsp A perusal of the balance sheet as on 31st March, 2001 makes it clear that the appellant is not in a position to raise amounts to make a pre-deposit. On a turn over of over Rs. 41 lakhs, the appellant is making a loss of Rs. 17 lakhs. A large portion of credit has been declared lsquo doubtful rsquo . In these circumstances, whatever be the merits of the case, insistence on pre-deposit of the amount of duty involved would cause undue hardship to the appellant. Accordingly, a complete waiver of pre-deposit is allowed. The appeal to come up for hearing on 30-1-2002.
-
2001 (12) TMI 511 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he contention of the Revenue is that as the appellant admitted the duty liability and the clearance of goods without payment of duty. 4. emsp The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had not given any reason for setting aside the penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order only considered the merits of the appeals filed by the persons on whom the penalties were imposed under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules being employees of the respondents. In the impugned order there is no finding in respect of the appeal filed by M/s. Parakaram Technofab Ltd., the present respondent. Taking into facts and circumstance, as the appellant had admitted their liability and admitted that they had cleared the goods without payment of duty, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. The impugned order is set aside whereby the penalty on the respondent is set aside and the order-in-original where the penalty is imposed on the present respondent is restored.
-
2001 (12) TMI 510 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... aken note of the Supreme Court judgment in CCE v. Steel Strips Limited 1995 (77) E.L.T. 248, holding that cold rolling of strips manufactured by steel rolling mills does not amount to process of manufacture. It had therefore waived deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed on the applicant before it. The departmental representative seeks to distinguish the Supreme Court judgment. He contends that subsequent to the period with which that judgment was concerned, the definition of ldquo manufacture rdquo has undergone a change. We do not see how this helps the department. The only change that took place (in 1986) was the inclusion in the definition of ldquo manufacture rdquo or ldquo processes rdquo deemed to be such in the notes to the chapters of the tariff. Prima facie, therefore, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment would apply to the facts before us and no duty would be payable. 4. emsp Accordingly we waive deposit of the duty and penalty, and stay their recovery.
-
2001 (12) TMI 487 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mbay so that they are not tempted to resort to such imperfect documentation or manipulation in the entries of such documents in future. rdquo 3. emsp I have heard both the sides and considered the appeal and I find (a) No show-cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing the penalty under Section 117. The notice was issued proposing penalty only under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner has come to the findings that no penalty under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act could not be imposed on the present appellant and penalty under Section 117 was called for if that be the case, the present proceedings and the notice issued should have been dropped. He could propose a fresh notice if required under Section 117. (b) In this view of the finding in the show cause notice as regard the imposition of penalty, I would consider setting aside the same and allow this appeal. In view of my findings the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
2001 (12) TMI 486 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Duty liability not contested at appropriate stage - Effect - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... uty is demanded in that particular way, for e.g. letter of the assessee issued on 2-5-1988 gives statement of stock. Reply of the assessee dated 10-6-1988 calls for method of valuation. Page 8 of the order does not give reasons for method of valuation. The valuation, according to us, has not been properly done. For that purpose, we set aside that portion of the order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants reason as to why the valuation should be done in a particular way and decide the matter accordingly by passing a reasoned order. 9. emsp During the course of the argument, the learned Counsel had given plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts especially regarding the proviso. But in view of what is stated above, namely the judgment of the Supreme Court in the appellant rsquo s own case, it is unnecessary to deal with them individually. 10. emsp The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
-
2001 (12) TMI 485 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Natural justice - Order ... ... ... ... ..... r has been passed without furnishing copies of essential documents relied upon in the show cause notices and that the categorical directions given by the predecessor Commissioner in proceedings held on 24-12-1996 and 27-1-1997. We also note that the directions given by the present adjudicating authority in the proceedings held on 17-8-1999 have not been complied with. The order therefore clearly suffers from vice of violation of principles of natural justice. We therefore set aside the same and remand the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision in accordance with law after supplying the appellants copies of all relevant documents and affording the facility of inspection and copies of other relied upon documents. He shall pass fresh orders after considering their reply and after extending to them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellants are at liberty to raise all pleas in their defence. 16. emsp In the result the appeals are allowed by remand
-
2001 (12) TMI 484 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... ly unable to see how the letter of the Superintendent satisfies any of these criteria. It merely asked the manufacturer to reverse the credit and told him that if he did not do so, action under the rules will be initiated against him. That letter can, by no means, to be construed to be an order of adjudication. All it says is that if the credit is not debited, action in law will be initiated. The letter in question therefore falls far short of an adjudication order. It can perhaps be argued that it is in the nature of a notice. I am however not concerned with that. Since it is not in the nature of an appealable order, no appeal would have been filed against that letter. 5. emsp The Counsel for the respondent contends that if that is the case, he is entitled to recovery of credit which he reversed on the basis of this letter. I am however not concerned with that aspect. That is not the issue before me. 6. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
............
|
