|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 137 Records
-
1977 (8) TMI 162 - COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Officers could not lay their hands on the R.G. 1 on the date and time of their visit but this by itself will not make a complete case against the appellants for non-accounting of the goods in the records. Keeping in view the above position, I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants in respect of confiscation of 223 coils which have been seized for contravention of Rule 173-G (4) read with rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules. I, therefore, set side the order of confiscation of 223 coils of electric wires and cables and also the order of the Deputy Collector imposing a redemption fine on the appellants of ₹ 200/- in view of confiscation of the above goods. However, the order of imposition of personal penalty of ₹ 250/- on the appellant for contravention of Rule 173-G (6) of Central Excise Rules will stand because contravention of this rule is held to be established. The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above but is otherwise rejected.
-
1977 (8) TMI 161 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DEHI
... ...
... ... ..... n in R.G. 1 to record the grey Art Silk Fabrics, R.G. 1 is a record of manufactured goods and fully finished stock deposited in the Store Room on other place of storage approved under Rule 47. It is not feasible and also not required to record the grey fabrics in R G. 1 and the finished fabrics side by side and ascertain the percentage of losses/gains occurred in processing. Moreover, the alleged shortage had occurred in processing when the fabrics in question had not reached the stage of excisability and could not be subjected to excise duty. Hence there is no loss of revenue and the case does not fall within the mischief of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is further observed that the losses even at the grey stage are only 0.1% which are negligible. I am therefore satisfied with the explanation tendered by the assessee. ORDER Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I drop the proceedings instituted against the assessee in this case.
-
1977 (8) TMI 160 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the consumers is not legally correct because no such condition of exemption from duty is laid down in relevant Notification No. 92/70-C.E., dated 1-5-1970 as amended by Notification No. 101/72, dated 17-3-1972. The order of the Assistant Collector is consequently set aside with the direction that the refund claim be considered by him as on merits.
-
1977 (8) TMI 159 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... his duty liability is intimated by the proper officer. Therefore, in this case the duty liability under the simplified procedure will commence as above. During the preceding period i.e. before his duty liability as intimated to him, the appellants should pay duty under the physical control prescribed in Chapter V of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, if the value to the goods does not exceed five lakhs of rupees or under the self removal procedure prescribed in chapter VII-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, if such value exceeds Rs. five lakhs (sub-rule (1) of rule 173RJ refers). The duty liability of the appellants will, therefore, be determined by the Assistant Collector under Chapter V procedure and the appellants will continue to avail of the exemption, if eligible for the same. In view of the above discussions, the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside. Assessments for the relevant period will be revised in accordance with the decision in pare of the order above.
-
1977 (8) TMI 158 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... thus been non-observance of the principles of natural justice. The classification list, as approved by the Assistant Collector, is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Collector for a de novo decision after observance of principles of natural justice.
-
1977 (8) TMI 157 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is not justified under Rule 10A. 2. I have considered all these submissions and observe that the loading charges which are shown separately in the invoices are incurred for loading of the subject goods in the tankers either by the customers or arranged on their behalf by the appellants. The manufacture of the,subject goods is complete when it is filled in tanks of the appellants and hence expenses towards loading do not form part of the assessable value in terms of section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as their inclusion would mean that wholesale market exists at the buyers premises which is not correct. The delivery charges are distinguishable and identifiable as such and are distinct from the wholesale cash price. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the inclusion of loading charges in the assessable value is not correct in law and hence I set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and accept the appeal. Consequential relief, if any, is allowed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 156 - COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... resultant product is of uneven size and shape and very much different from strips as known in the market. In this connection I observe that the word strips’ is well defined in I.S.I. According to the I.S.I. definition (I.S.I. 5-113), strips should be in straight length or in coil form. The appellants describe the subject goods to be of irregular size and shape. They have not been seen by the officers below at any stage. Comparable goods have been examined by the officers below nor any trade opinion has been obtained about their description. Therefore, the decision of the Assistant Collector to hold the subject products as cold rolled strips is not based on adequate evidence. Mere dipping of the products in sulphuric acid and rolling them to remove their unevenness will not make them as strip’s. In view of the above discussion, I set aside the Order of the Assistant Collector holding the subject products as strips and allow consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1977 (8) TMI 155 - THE APPEALLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of law, in cases where the duty collected under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 at the rate of 10% ad valorem exceeded the duty leviable at the rate of ₹ 2.50 per kg., refunds should be given. However, the duty shall be collected for this purpose at the Tariff duty of ₹ 2.50 P per kg. and not at the effective rate fixed by Notification No. 124/75-C.E., dated 12-5-1975 which came into force from the date of issue. I further observe that Section 5 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, under which the refunds is to be sanctioned to the appellants, does not prescribe any time limit for claiming the refund. 3. In view of this position, the rejection of the refund claim preferred by the appellants as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not correct in law and the same is therefore, set aside. Assistant Collector will now sanction the refund claim after verifying the fact of verification of payment of duty.
-
1977 (8) TMI 154 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ot in his jurisdiction to review the final order passed by his predecessor, I observe that duty in all the four Show Cause Notices has been demanded under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which applies to the instant case in case it is ultimately held that the duty was short-levied through inadvertence, error or mis-construction on the part of the officer or through mis-statement as to the quantity, description or value of such goods on the part of the appellants. There has been a levy in all these cases and, therefore, they fall within the mischief of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. Keeping in view the above consideration I observe that the matter of determining the price of the products of the appellants in the relevant period is one which must be gone into by the Assistant Collector de novo, keeping in view my above observations in this order. I, therefore, remand the case back to the Assistant Collector after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1977 (8) TMI 153 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and only inevitable conclusion to be reached, in such circumstances, is that the conclusion arrived at by the assessing authority and laterly confirmed by the first appellate authority that the act on the part of the assessee-dealers in purchasing rubber bags, plastic tubes and glass syringes on the basis of C forms is a violation or refraction of section 10(b) of the CST Act cannot at all be stated to be unjustified. 28.. For the reasons, as above, it goes without saying that the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, Madras deserves to be set aside and the order of the said Appellate Assistant Commissioner requires to be restored. 29.. In fine, the Tax Case (Revision) No. 544 of 1985 is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) III, Madras is ordered to be restored. There shall, however, be no order, in the circumstances, as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the respondent will be able to prove his defence at the final stage of the trial may not be of much consequence. Surely the prosecution will have to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt?
Held that:- The High Court has enumerated three circumstances in its impugned order. We may just add, and that is only for the purpose of a cursory observation for deciding the matter at this stage, that the story of assault on Tara Devi by the respondent a day prior to the occurrence is perhaps sought to be proved by the evidence of Chandreshwar Singh, the informant, and it seems, he would also try to say, rightly or wrongly, that at the time of the said assault the respondent had given her a threat to kill her. The High Court felt persuaded to take the view that the three circumstantial facts, even if proved, would not be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and then added "There may be strong suspicion against the opposite party, but the three circumstances which I have just mentioned above, cannot be said to be incompatible with the defence of the accused." The said observation of the High Court is not quite apposite in the background of the law which we have enunciated above with reference to the provisions of sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Appeal allowed - we set aside the impugned orders of the High Court.
-
1977 (8) TMI 151 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner and find that they do not support the contention raised by him. 11.. There is yet another aspect of the case to which we must advert though in a passing manner. What has been called into question before us is the order of the assessing authority and also the order passed by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, in revision. No point of law has been referred to us under the provisions of the Act by the Tribunal. The scope of this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is limited and unless we find any apparent error of law or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. As we do not find any such error, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner. 12.. In the result, we dismiss the petition with costs. The costs of the opposite party are assessed at Rs. 200, if certified. The security amount may be refunded after deducting the costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sed any orders yet. It is not clear as to whether any written application was filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 2. In view of these circumstances, it is not possible to issue any order against respondent No. 2 directing him to permit the petitioner to sell the goods so as to clear off the dues. The proper procedure for the petitioner to adopt is to make an application before respondent No. 2 for the permission to sell the goods to pay off the tax provided, of course, the same is permissible under the law. In view of the above considerations we dismiss the petition as having abated. The stay order is discharged. However, in view of the fact that the appeal for the year 1970-71 has been pending before the appellate authority for a considerable length of time, we hope that the appellate authority will dispose of as expeditiously as possible. A copy of this order will be given to the counsel for the petitioner tomorrow on payment of usual charges. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 149 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Delhi 1958 9 S.T.C. 417 (S.C.). Mr. Chawla also contends that the words save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide show that the bar to the taxation is not absolute one. The preamble of the Act shows that it was enacted by the Parliment. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Sangal is that the definition of State law contained in article 366(26-A)(a), (d) and (g) would include the impugned legislation as the State law. I am not expressing any opinion on these submissions in view of my finding that the petitioner-company is not the Union within the scope of article 285 of the Constitution. So far as the prayer for quashing the impugned notices and the proceedings pursuant on the notices are concerned, the challenge is yet premature as no orders have been passed. Let the petitioner pursue his remedies before the sales tax authorities. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 148 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs but was content to take the number of rounds as four per year, shows that he did not act vindictively. But, Shri Burman submitted that in the earlier years the assessing authorities had found that the petitioner had used his brick kiln only for 2 frac12 rounds per season and hence the Judge (Revisions) should have adopted the same number of rounds as the basis for estimating the petitioner s turnovers for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68 also. Though the petitioner s operations in the earlier years were relevant, there is no presumption that in the assessment years in question the number of rounds of operation of the petitioner s brick kiln remained the same as in the earlier years and that there was no increase in the number of such rounds to four. We see no grounds to interfere with the order of the Additional Judge (Revisions). In the result, we dismiss this petition. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 147 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts, walnuts and all other varieties of nuts not elsewhere specified in the Schedule but excluding betel nuts. Thus it appears to us apart from the fact that the said judgment under appeal was rightly decided, in our view, by the learned Judge of the court of first instance, the amendment brought into existence by the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, clearly and unambiguously brings almond and pistachio within the mischief of the expression nuts as defined in the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. The amendment further by way of a legal fiction makes these goods nuts apart from anything else from the date when the said impugned Act came into operation. On both the grounds, therefore, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit and must fail and is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs. PYNE, J.-I agree. Appeal dismissed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 146 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pective effect. In view of the aforesaid amendment to the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972, and specially section 2 of the Amendment Act, as quoted hereinabove, cashewnuts specifically have come within the mischief of the operation of the said Act and to that extent the learned Judge s finding cannot be sustained. In the premises, the appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge so far as it relates to levy of tax at the rate of 6 per cent ad valorem on cashewnuts is set aside and the assessing authorities are directed to assess the same at 1 frac12 per cent ad valorem and the rule to that extent is made absolute. The appellants are directed to refund to the respondent the amount collected in excess of the amount which would be legally payable by the respondent as tax on cashewnuts. The appeal is disposed of on the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. PYNE, J.-I agree. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 145 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d down in the said reported decision have been satisfied and thus the onus in the instant case, in terms of the said determination, was on the respondents and, in fact, they have not been able to disprove the presumption which was so raised by the said petitioner. I am also of the view that the fact that a case is very old would not be a cause or a criteria for exonerating the authorities concerned from their obligations to discharge the onus as aforesaid. In that view of the matter, the arguments of Mr. Chakraborty should succeed and the rule as such must be made absolute. I order accordingly. Let appropriate writs be issued setting aside the impugned order in annexure G to the main petition. This will not, however, prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh in the matter and to make a proper and appropriate determination in accordance with law after due notice to the said petitioner if they so like or are advised. There will be no order for costs. Rule made absolute.
-
1977 (8) TMI 144 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bling the Sales Tax Officer to assess the escaped turnover after following a special procedure, the revisional jurisdiction under rule 80 of the Rules cannot be construed to embrace such power to assess escaped turnover. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that rule 80 of the Rules does not confer any power and jurisdiction on the Commissioner to assess escaped turnover which has been specifically provided in section 12(8) of the Act. Logically, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax cannot get a jurisdiction and power which the Commissioner himself does not possess. On this ground also the impugned order (annexure 2) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax is without jurisdiction and such order is, therefore, liable to be quashed. We, accordingly, direct that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing annexure 2. This petition, accordingly, succeeds and the petitioner is entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 200. MOHANTI, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
1977 (8) TMI 143 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... me Court in State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan(1) seems to apply here, are, exceptions (a) and (c) (see para 9 supra). The concept of cotton fabrics in the Central Excises and Salt Act seems to be integrally linked with the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, and we do not think that we would be justified in regarding the latter Act as unaffected by the growing concept of the term cotton fabrics in the Central Excises and Salt Act. We feel too, that unless the extended definition of the Central Excises and Salt Act is imported into the Sales Tax Act, the latter Act would become unworkable and ineffectual. We therefore allow these tax revision cases, set aside the orders of the Appellate Tribunal, and send these cases back to the Tribunal to determine the amount due by way of refund to the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Issue carbon copies to counsel. Petitions allowed.
........
|
