|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 474 Records
-
2000 (10) TMI 174 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
... ...
... ... ..... nly of an academic nature and also will not be proper in view of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Kumar Bajaj vs. ITO (1999) 64 TTJ (Nag) (SB) 200 (1999) 69 ITD 1 (Nag) (SB). 11. Before parting, we may point out that Chapter XIV and Chapter XIV-B operate in different planes relating to the assessments of undisclosed income. If on the basis of material found during the course of search it is gathered that the assessees have concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars or by claiming fictitious expenditure in the regular books of account, then the proceedings can be reopened and assessments framed under Chapter XIV as per the provisions contained in that Chapter if the facts and circumstances of the case so justify in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Paper and Board Ltd. and Ors. vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 146 CTR (Guj) 612 (1998) 234 ITR 733 (Guj). 12. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 173 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Delay In Filing Audit Report ... ... ... ... ..... 3 ITR 26 (SC) that the levy of penalty is discretionary and penalty is not to be imposed for technical or venial breach of a statutory provision In the present case, statutory audit was completed only on 17th Jan., 1990. The auditors raised some points in the audit report which were required to be looked into and complied with by the assessee. After complying with the various points the assessee submitted return on 26th Feb., 1990. It is not a case in which the assessee did not take proper care to comply with various statutory provisions. No default is attributable to the act and conduct of the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under s. 271B of the IT Act. The penalty levied is held to be unjustified and is cancelled. In the light of above finding I deem it unnecessary to go into several other legal issues raised by the learned counsel for the assessee. The penalty imposed is cancelled. 6. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 172 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Refunds, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... he taxpayers. Neither in the Income-tax Act nor in the Rules framed under the Incometax Rules any statutory form has been prescribed for the payment of different types of taxes like advance tax, TDS or payment of regular demand or even of self assessment tax under section 140A. All the forms supplied by the Department for payment of various types of taxes are non-statutory forms and these are meant only for the convenience of the tax payers. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that since admittedly the payment of Rs. 1,24,908 on account of advance tax was made by the assessee on 9-4-1990 in Challan No. 2 alongwith the payment of TDS of Rs. 44,101 totaling Rs. 1,69,009, the assessee is entitled to refund alongwith interest under section 244A and the Departmental Authorities were not justified in denying the claim of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is accordingly directed to allow interest to the assessee under section 244A. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 171 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... vour of the appellant herein was not questioned by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the appeal filed by the present appellant challenging the inclusion of 1.5 million DKK to the assessable value of the imported goods, appellate authority, for reasons best known to her, interfered with the said finding and directed the adjudicating officer to include royalty at the appropriate time for computation of the loading factor making all future assessments provisional. In appeal filed by the assessee the Commissioner was not at all justified in reversing that part of the order of the primary authority which was in favour of the appellant before him. On this short ground, we set aside the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner regarding royalty payable by the appellant to the foreign collaborator. 8. In view of what has been stated above, the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority are set aside with consequential relief, if any.
-
2000 (10) TMI 169 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Excisability - Export - Penalty - 100% EOU ... ... ... ... ..... by the Development Commissioner. However show cause notices could be issued, as directed by the Ministry of Finance vide Circular No. 21/95-Cus., dated 10-3-1995 and Circular No. 122/95-Cus., dated 28-11-95. There is no finding that such an action has been complied with. The Commissioner is bound by these directions. Therefore, the subject demands under the Central Excise Act, 1962 and penalties thereunder cannot be sustained as arrived at in the order impugned. The order therefore is required to be set aside. (c) The exports made, as claimed by the appellants and the findings whether outer-body quilted garments were for training or manufacture and/or export has to be established and determined afresh. 6. In view of our findings, we would set aside the order and remand it back to the Adjudicator to re-decide the matter after following the instructions in the Ministry s circulars and thereafter granting a hearing to the appellants. Appeal allowed on remand in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat ... ... ... ... ..... d of any reasoning for a penalty of equal amount under Rule 173Q, in the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no warrant for such or any penalty under Rule 173Q on the appellant or for any interest under Rule 57-I. 13. In view of our findings, Parts (i), (iv) and (v) of the impugned order are set aside. While upholding part (iii) of the impunged order, we direct that the question of recoverability of the credit of Rs. 58,50,833/- and also such part of the credit of Rs. 1,23,31,456/- as was taken on inputs mentioned at Sl. Nos. 14 to 19 of the list of inputs considered in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 501 (T) shall also be decided by the Commissioner along with the question relating to demand of Rs. 10,57,409/- after the High Court s decision in Reference and, further, that our order on the point of limitation shall apply to the recovery if any. Part (iii) of the impugned order will stand modified to this effect. 14.The appeal is allowed to the above extent.
-
2000 (10) TMI 165 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Customs) - Transaction value ... ... ... ... ..... t is unable to produce any evidence in the case regarding payment of extra amount by the respondents-importer to the foreign seller. If such evidence is procured then the case of the Department would have a different picture but unfortunately that is not the fact here case of the Department is that there was no purchase contract nor is it covered by the same letter of credit, therefore, the transaction value cannot be accepted. Therefore, the case of the Department is weak. 5. Moreover the grounds of appeal states about contemporaneous but import what are the particulars of import have to be disclosed specifically. The grounds of appeal as to the comparable nature of the quantity imported as well as the quantity of goods should be imported at a comparable level. Without these particulars we cannot accept the case of the Department. We are, therefore, of the view that the entire grounds taken by the Department lacks substance. Hence, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... issioner s order i.e. 16-5-1997, this order was clearly passed beyond the period of one year. Therefore, it suffers from the limitation laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 129D. 7. In the cited judgment the Supreme Court made a conscious distinction between the acquition of knowledge of a particular order made by an officer of Customs. Where the question of limitation comes up, as for the Department is concerned, it is the date on which the order is made and not the date on which the communication is made. As far as the affected person is concerned, it is not the date of the decision on file but the date on which it is communicated. 8. We find that the Commissioner was correct in holding that the Review application was barred by limitation. This order, therefore, survives. In view of this observation, we do not consider necessary to go into the merits of the case. We uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue appeal. 9. The cross-objection also stands disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 163 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Limitation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... to disclose their true relationship with M/s. Albert David. I have examined the labels and the cartons containing the inscription to the effect that the subject goods were being manufactured by M/s. Vax Institute in cooperation with M/s. Albert David. The said inscriptions do not disclose that the goods were manufactured by M/s. Albert David and as such, there is no force in the findings of the learned Vice-President. For this reason, I entirely agree with the findings of the learned Member (Judicial). I, therefore, hold that the duty demand against M/s. Vax Institute is not hit by time-bar and hence their appeals are liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 29.Registry may take appropriate follow-up action in this matter. Sd/- (S.N. Busi) Member (T) FINAL ORDER In terms of majority opinion, the appeal filed by M/s. Vax Institute Laboratory is rejected and the appeal filed by M/s. Albert David Ltd. is accepted. Sd/- (S.N. Busi) Member (T) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (J)
-
2000 (10) TMI 162 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... for 1612 model fitted with GBS 40 gear box and 697 NA engine would automatically reflect that it is solely on account of the said fitments. The increased price could be on account of various other facilities that may be provided in respect of the said model of MVC. 6.From the foregoing discussions it is quite evident that the appellants have deliberately refrained from disclosing to the Department that 697NA engine and GBS 40 gear box were optional fitments in respect of 1612 model and failed to pay the differential duty of Rs. 15,290/- in respect of each MVC during the relevant period. In view thereof, we hold that the Commissioner has rightly confirmed the total demand of duty and cess to the tune of Rs. 2,22,21,213.89 after giving due allowance to the exported goods and imposed a total penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/-. 7.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these three appeals and, accordingly, reject the same. 8.In the result, these three appeals are rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 159 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... e Revenue Authorities working under the Board. The dispute involved in the present appeal is clearly covered in favour of the appellants by the above Circular. Under the normal circumstances, I would have remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, after granting dispensation but as the sole dispute involved in the present appeal is covered by the Board s Circular mentioned supra, I do not find any justification for remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). In any case, I would like to observe here that before deciding the Stay Petition and before dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-compliance, the appellate authority was under a legal duty to hear the appellants and to apply his mind and then decide the Stay Petition or the Appeal. 6. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order passed by the authority below and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants. The stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2000 (10) TMI 158 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cated, he realized that each of the appellants had asked for adjournment of hearing. Thereafter, he records, he heard these persons and passed an order. 2. We had earlier adjourned the matter on a couple of occasions to see exactly what the earlier order was. The departmental representative confesses his inability to obtain the file despite his requests to the Custom House. 3. If once the Collector has passed an order in the file and signed it, that order becomes an order in law. The Department, under section 129D of the Act, can appeal the order even if it is not communicated. The Bombay High Court, in its judgment in Cosmic Radio v. Union of India 1983 (12) E.L.T. 84 has said mere non-communication of an adjudication order does not render it having no force in law, communication being merely an administrative act. That being the case, the second order passed by the Collector is non est, and has no force in law. 4. That order is therefore set aside. The appeals are allowed.
-
2000 (10) TMI 157 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Interpretation of statutes - Conditional notification - Modvat - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... duties against the assessees, the Modvat credit available to them, should be allowed subject to verification of payment of duty on the inputs. As the appellants were not paying any duty on the yarn in dispute, the question of following of Modvat Procedure does not arise. As such, while upholding that the demand of duty is payable on the Yarn in question, we remit the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for re-quantification of the demand after allowing the benefit of Modvat credit to the respondents. 12.In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we also do not find any reason for imposition of personal penalty upon the respondents, inasmuch as the issue relates to the bona fide dispute about the interpretation of the exemption notification. Accordingly, we set aside that portion of the Assistant Commissioner, vide which he has imposed personal penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 upon the respondents. Appeal of the Revenue is allowed to the above extent and in the above terms.
-
2000 (10) TMI 154 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Smuggling - Evidence -Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... sioner, we also do not find any justification in interfering in the quantum of personal penalties upon the various appellants, which seem to be appropriate keeping in view the gravity of the offence. 21.As regards the confiscation of the trucks we find that the same have been admittedly used in the transportation of the smuggled silver. Their confiscation is thus liable to be upheld in terms of the provisions of section 115(2) of the Customs Act. 22.As regards the imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Nathuni Pd. Jaiswal, the adjudicating authority has referred to his own admission as well as the statements of the driver and has concluded that he was in hand and glove with Shri Tarachand Jain and Shri Bajranglal Panwar in the act of transportation of the smuggling and contraband goods. We do not find any justifiable reason to differ from the above finding of the adjudicating authority. As a result all the appeals are rejected and we uphold the impugned order.
-
2000 (10) TMI 152 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Marketability - Intermediate goods - Excisability - Proof - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... eriod of limitation has been rightly invoked. 11.Accordingly, we confirm the demand of Rs. 9,24,818.54. However, as regards the personal penalty of Rs. 9.25 lakh imposed on the appellant firm, M/s. Gillooram Gaurishanker, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the same to Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh) only. 12.As regards the personal penalties imposed upon the Directors and the Manager of the appellant firm under the provisions of Rule 209A, we do not find any justification for imposition of separate penalties upon them. The same is accordingly, set aside and the appeals of Shri G.P. Dalmia, Director, Shri Sanjay Dalmia, Director, Shri Sunil Dalmia, Director and Shri K.K. Jha, Manager - are allowed. 13.As a result, demand of duty is confirmed against the appellant firm and the personal penalty imposed on them is reduced to Rs. 5.00 lakh. Appeals filed by the other four appellants are allowed and penalties imposed upon them are set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 150 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... authority had treated it as a refund claim. We find that in the facts and circumstances of this case when the rate of duty had been reduced by the Legislature and the assessee had paid a higher duty even when he was eligible for paying a lower rate of duty, the view taken by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was in the interest of justice. 5. As regards the involvement of unjust enrichment it has been noted by the appellate authority that the assessee had already issued credit notes with the details of the Cheques issued to the consumers and he has issued directions to the Revenue to verify the credit notes. We consider that this direction of the appellate authority was fair and the Revenue cannot have any grievance against such an order. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and taking note of the order issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (10) TMI 148 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - Demand and penalty - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... a position to have sufficient knowledge of the processes of manufacture, and by their physical presence and the number of checks at the various stage of manufacture from the receipt of raw material to the clearance of finished product, aware of the various facets of the manufacturing process of different kind of tyres. That knowledge gained during the period of physical control therefore would apply to the remaining period too, unless it can be shown that subsequent to the removal of the physical control there has been a change in the manufacturing process. That is not the department s allegation. It has therefore to be concluded that the extended period would not be available to the department and the entire demand is barred by limitation. It will consequently follow that no penalties either on the appellant firm or on the official can be imposed. The confiscation of plant and machinery ordered is also not sustainable. 22.The appeals allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2000 (10) TMI 146 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... qually applicable to Rule 57F(2). We also note that the Tribunal held that if it is permissible to replace any unserviceable part during repair logically, no objection could be taken on replacement of the unserviceable bottom shell having the serial number of the compressor engraved on it. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that there was manufacture involved when the bottom shell which carried original serial number has to be replaced and consequently the same serial number engraved with the prefix R on the new bottom shell, for by no stretch of imagination can it be said that a commercially new or distinct article has come into existence. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the activity undertaken by the respondents is not that of manufacture but is that of repair and since repair is covered by Rule 57F(2) as indicated above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
2000 (10) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... im Modvat credit. 17.In the light of the findings arrived at hereinabove, the entire matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to work out the duty liability of the assessee. Appeals are disposed of by setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below by remitting entire issue for re-adjudication in the light of the observations made earlier in this final order in relation to various items mentioned therein. I make it clear that relief given by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Appeal to the assessee will stand subject to the observations made by me in the two appeals filed by the Revenue. Being a long pending matter, the adjudicating authority is directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the above observation as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While making final order reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter should be afforded to the assessee.
-
2000 (10) TMI 142 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Brand Name - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Notice was hopelessly barred by limitation. In support of this argument, ld. Counsel brought to our notice the statement given by Shri Chandrasekhar to the Excise authorities on 9-12-1991. In that statement, he divulged all facts relating to the use of the trade mark and the house mark to the Departmental authorities. When those facts were so made known to the Departmental authorities way back in December, 1991, the authorities were not justified in issuing SCN on 9-12-1995 for the period from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1994. We find much force in this contention. We are not pursuing this issue further because the finding arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority that the appellants were using the trade mark of another who was not entitled to the benefits as an SSI Unit is found to be incorrect. 9.In view of what has been stated above, order impugned in these appeals is set aside in its entirety with consequential relief, if any. All the seven appeals are allowed of in the above terms.
............
|
