|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 410 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 140 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Regular OK auto tyres not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 229/82-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... t the only criterion required to be satisfied for claiming the benefit of Notification 229/82 is that each tyre should be prominently marked with the letters ldquo ADV rdquo is not tenable, in view of the Tribunal rsquo s order supra wherein the further requirement has been set out viz., that the tyre should be specially designed for animal drawn vehicles. Regarding time bar, the assessee rsquo s plea that during the period in dispute, they were under physical control by the Department and hence the question of suppression or mis-statement does not arise, is incorrect, since physical control of tyres came into effect only from 1-8-1985 vide Notification No. 169/85, dated 19-7-1985. The appellants have not challenged the application of the extended period of limitation on any other ground hence, this argument also falls to the ground. 4. emsp In the light of the above, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order, uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Welded wire mesh manufactured out of imported iron and steel bars and rods, not eligible to benefit under Notification No. 206/63-C.E.
-
1998 (12) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ibunal by the Revenue filing an appeal on classification, order dated 27-9-1991 and that the Tribunal by its Final Order No. E/56/94-D, dated 3-2-1994, set aside the classification under Heading 1902.90 and accepted the Revenue rsquo s contention of classification under sub-heading 1902.10. Since the basis of refund claim namely classification of the goods under sub-heading 1902.90 has been set aside by the Tribunal under the final order cited (supra), the result is that the appellants are not entitled to the refund, on the merits of the matter itself. In this view of matter, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 137 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... st this heading is for milling machines etc. Parts are not specifically covered by this heading. Therefore, we have to look to some other entry where parts are covered. We note that parts are specifically covered in the residuary entry under Heading 8485. Thus, we find that the goods in dispute will be correctly classifiable under Heading 8485. 5. emsp In so far as availability of exemption under Notification 111/88 is concerned, we note that machines were specifically covered by this Notification. However, by issue of amending Notification 141/88 issued in April 1988, parts are also covered. Thus, the benefit of Notification No. 111/88 read with amending notification parts of milling machinery which are parts in the present case, shall be covered by this exemption Notification. Having regard to the above finding, we allow the appeal both on classification as claimed by the assessees as well as on the benefit of exemption notification under Notification No. 111/88 as amended.
-
1998 (12) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... taken on the raw materials. 3. emsp Shri Ascharaj Lal, learned Consultant appears for the respondents and submits that the lower authorities have correctly held and prays that the appeal may be rejected. 4. emsp We have heard the detailed submissions of the learned DR and perused the records. We note that the show cause notice was limited to PVC waste arising out of the use of PVC granules, whereas in the Review Order and the appeal filed before us, the issue for determination is whether the waste arises out of the raw materials used in the manufacture of wires and cables. We note that the PVC falls under Chapter 39 whereas electric wires and cables fall under Chapter 85. Thus, we find that the appeal is on an entirely different ground which was not the subject matter of the show cause notice. In effect, the Department has tried to make out a completely new case which was not the issue in the show cause notice. In this view of the matter, we reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (12) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Seizure - Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... nts as discussed at page 5 of the order-in-original. According to the appellants their value of clearances was Rs. 14,51,107.50. On the basis of the entries in the note book excise clearances of Rs. 1,53,120/- were arrived at. After adding the two figures, their value of clearances was calculated at Rs. 16,04,227.50 and the duty of Rs. 26,057/- was calculated only on the differential value of Rs. 1,04,227.50/-. Taking all the relevant facts and consideration into account, we confirm the demand of duty of Rs. 26,057/- as above. 6. emsp The penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed on the appellants. We have given benefit of doubt in so far as the seized goods were concerned. Taking into account all the relevant facts and consideration, we reduce the amount from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 7. emsp Subject to above, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Consequential relief to the appellants as per law be given in respect of redemption fine and penalty as above. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... We also observe that the Collector (Appeals) has mentioned in his findings in the impugned order that the other points i.e. the points regarding sale being on principal to principal basis, the sale being guided only by commercial consideration, etc., are relevant only for determination of assessable value and such points are not relevant for determing the applicability of para 7 of the notification in the case. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 175/86 in respect of goods affixed with brand names of their customers and removed from their factory before 22-9-1987 i.e. the date on which Notification No. 175/86 was amended by Notification No. 223/87. The appellant rsquo s are, however, liable to pay the duty on such goods removed on or after 22-9-1987. This liability to duty has been accepted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants. The appeal is thus disposed of in these terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ich he deposed that he was purchasing biris in the shape of kattas and in order to save them from damage during transportation, he wraps them into packets and then into bags. In our view this will not amount to repacking from bulk to retail. The Collector has also gone by the labelling and relabelling of the biris. There is no evidence to conclude that the appellant was labelling or relabelling biris, as he has not said so in his statement and there is no other evidence to support the finding that he was labelling or relabelling the biris. In these circumstances, the demand is not sustainable. Hence we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 132 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Utensils of aluminium - Not covered by Notification No. 180/88-C.E.
... ... ... ... ..... her substance, often one of circular section and made of some durable material, specially utensils of this nature in domestic use, employed in connection with preparation or serving of food or drink and usually of size suitable for carrying by hand. rdquo Applying this definition to the items enumerated herein above, we find that Sl. Nos. 1 to 10 cannot be considered as utensils of aluminium but would be fit to be regarded as containers. Similarly, items at Sl. Nos. 19, 26, 27 and 34 are not utensils, but containers. Therefore, we hold that the extension of benefit to the above Sl. Nos. by the lower appellate authority is not correct in law. Collector (Appeals) has already held that Sl. Nos. 13, 14, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 29 are not covered by the Notification. 4. emsp In the result, we modify the impugned order to the extent that the items at Sl. Nos. 1 to 10, 19, 26, 27 and 34 are held to be not covered by the Notification 180/88. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... made out by the appellant at the time of adjudication of the case. Therefore, these pleas of fact now taken by him before the lower appellate authority were rightly discarded by the said authority. The adjudication was made by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant along with the statements of the three occupants of the jeep. The four statements corroborate one another which clearly indicate that the liquor was attempted to be exported to Pakistan. In the face of the evidence on record and in the absence of any reply from the appellant, the conclusion arrived at by the original authority as also by the lower appellate authority cannot be challenged at this stage. Statements also bring out the fact that the appellant was concerned in attempting to export the goods. Penalty has also, therefore, been rightly imposed on the appellant. 3.1 emsp In view of the foregoing discussion. I do not find any substance in the appeal before me.
-
1998 (12) TMI 130 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Export - Proof of export - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... efore, Commissioner is not satisfied on the basis of available evidence then the proof of export cannot be accepted. He accordingly prays for dismissing the appeal. 4.1 emsp I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. On the basis of the evidence produced to which detailed mention has been given above, I am satisfied that the goods have been exported as is apparent from H rsquo Form, Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading, Invoice number etc., there being tallying of complete documents. There is no reason not to believe the H rsquo Form when the Trade Notice particularly mention so. As regards the time, H rsquo Form is to be produced within that limitation is relaxable and can be relaxed by the authority. In any case that could be relaxed by the concerned authority when the other evidence regarding proof of export has been submitted. In view of the foregoing discussion, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Remission of duty on damaged goods - Abatement of duty - Import ... ... ... ... ..... e seen to have been carried in LCL containers i.e. they occupied only a part of a container which might have container other goods. Hence the distinction made in the survey report between storage in a container and storage in the docks with regard to its damage requires a basis in fact, which is not shown to exist. The goods were lying in the premises of the appellant for about a month after clearance from the Customs and before the survey was carried out. The possibility that the damage occurred during this can also not be excluded. The survey report does not indicate the basis for the conclusion that damage was caused by corrosive material. The Section 22 lays the onus for establishing the claim for abatement on the person making the claim. It is he who must satisfy the Assistant Collector that the ingredients of the section have been met. This has not been done. I, there, am unable to interfere with the finding in the order impugned in the appeal. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Patent and Proprietary Medicines - Exemption under Notification No. 48/77-C.E. not available ... ... ... ... ..... to have substantially complied with the provisions of the notifications and it was only a question of procedural lapse. We have noted in this respect that the notification is conditional and the condition that the samples are packed in a form distinctly different from regular trade packing is a very important condition and its non-observance cannot be considered simple as a matter of minor procedural infraction. Further more, this condition is in addition to the condition of marking each smallest packing clearly and conspicuously with the words ldquo PHYSICIANS SAMPLE NOT TO BE SOLD rdquo . Since all these aspects have already been dealt in details in the abovesaid order of the Tribunal and this case is similar to that, the Ld. Collector rsquo s order was required to be upheld on this aspect. However, as already mentioned in para 3 above the request for allowing Modvat benefit was required to be duly considered by the authorities below as already announced in the open court.
-
1998 (12) TMI 127 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... essee has given the working of the goodwill determined by it. The quantification of the goodwill on the facts of the case has not been challenged before us. Therefore, we are of the view that the trust was legally entitled to charge the amount on account of goodwill of the business. It is for the owner of the business to decide to charge or not to charge the amount in respect of goodwill at the time of the transfer of the business. If such goodwill had been charged, it is within the framework of the law. The mere fact that it was not charged in the past is no ground to reject the case of the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that it is a case of avoidance of tax by colourable device. We find that interest has been paid as per the terms of deed of partnership dt. 1st June, 1984. Therefore, the question of disallowance of interest does not arise. 8. In view of the above discussions, the order of CIT(A) is upheld and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 126 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... een with reference to objects of the society. The cottage industries are admittedly run by the member weavers. To promote such industry, the assessee-society was formed to facilitate the small weavers in procuring the raw material and marketing their products. Since 303 primary societies are members of the assessee-society, the closing stock is bound to be in bulk but that does not lead to the conclusion that processing units are not cottage industries. 12. In view of the above discussions, it is held that income of the society by way of commission and dyeing charges received from its members is attributable to cottage industry inasmuch as the activities carried on by the assessee-society, primary society and the member weavers are interlinked and inseparable. It is also further held that income from mere purchases and sale of the cloth manufactured by non-member societies cannot be attributed to cottage industry. 13. In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 121 - ITAT PUNE
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... vations by the larger Bench are by way of obiter dicta and ratio has been laid down by the Division Bench, then the decision of the Division Bench would prevail. Since, in our opinion, the ratio has been laid down by the larger Bench and no conflict appeals between the two decisions of the Supreme Court, we find ourselves not persuaded by the decision of the Madras High Court. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is not necessary for us to discuss the other case law cited before us. Facts of this case clearly show that assessee had not legal title to the suit lands. The advantage obtained by the assessee by acquiring the legal title to such lands was in the capital field. Even assuming that assessee had a title in the land, it was a defective title which was cured under the compromise decree. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee was clearly capital expenditure. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 120 - ITAT PUNE
Business Disallowance, Unreasonable Payment ... ... ... ... ..... of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Chatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd vs Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax 1992 198 ITR 78 (AT, Pune). The learned D.R. strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that both the authorities below have not gone into the nature of the liability. Without appreciating the facts of the case, they simply rushed to apply the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd (supra). This fact is admitted by both the parties before us. In our opinion, it will be in the fitness of things if this issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. He is directed to go into the nature of the liability vis-a-vis the resolution passed by the members of the society and then re-adjudicate upon the issue after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1998 (12) TMI 115 - ITAT NAGPUR
Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... s from patent mistake which has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the assessee on account of the adverse remarks damaging the reputation of the assessee who is one of the outstanding and reputed Industrialists of the Country. Such mistake therefore, needs to be rectified in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. Nagaraj. 19. In view of the above discussion, we delete paras 17 to 30 of our order. Consequently para 31 of our order will be substituted as para 17 and the same will read as under 17. In view of our finding in the preliminary ground, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. We, therefore, decline to adjudicate on the remaining grounds on merits namely rejection of the claim for conversion of capital asset into stock in trade and treating the contribution of shares to partnership firm as liable to capital gains tax. 18. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 20. Accordingly, the Misc. application filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 112 - ITAT JAIPUR
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... 41 3,23,500 5,84,741 29/Jp/98 Khrunisha 3 11,14,477 3,28,000 7,86,477 30/Jp/98 Mehrunisha 3 4,34,371 3,42,000 92,371 27/Jp/98 Mem 3 6,67,556 3,29,000 3,38,556 32/Jp/98 Sabra Banu 3 6,22,256 2,83,800 3,38,556 22/Jp/98 Salauddin 3 6,68,556 3,30,000 3,38,556 ----------- --------- ----------- 3,20,20,208 94,95,015 2,25,25,196 --------------------------------------------------------------- The income determined including returned income would be Rs. 1,74,52,208 being Rs. 1,08,222 for cash, Rs. 2,06,916 for gold jewellery, Rs. 8,23,060 for vehicles, Rs. 4,75,000 for marriage expenses, Rs. 2,10,000 for Haj Yatra, Rs. 10,00,000 for household expenses, Rs. 3,54,795 for household items, Rs. 1 lac for donation, Rs. 46,79,200 for construction and Rs. 94,95,015 for stocks. The income for all the members will be determined by the AO as mentioned in this order as against determined by him in his order including income returned by him. 40. In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 111 - ITAT JABALPUR
Exemption, Special Allowance, Conveyance Allowance, Additional Conveyance Allowance, Salary, Incentive Bonus
............
|
