|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 200 Records
-
1979 (7) TMI 100 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Revision - Licence - Grant of with retrospective effect ... ... ... ... ..... wire without a license. The petitioner was liable to prosecution for having contravened the above provisions of law for which the case was compounded by accepting a sum of Rs. 500/- under the provisions of Rule 200-A of the Central Excises Rules, 1954 and the petitioner hayving paid Rs.500/- further proceedings for prosecution were dropped. A license was also granted with retrospective effect, but it does not make the petitioner entitled to claim a relief in duty also under the notification dated 6-10-1965 when in fact he had manufactured the wires without a license and cleared the same without payment of duty. 7. In this view of the matter we don t see any error of jurisdiction or an error apparent on the fact of record committed by the Government of India in passing the order vide Annexure V dated 17-4-1969. No other point was pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 8. In the result this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
P.V.C. Heat Sealing Tapes - Classification - Change in opinion - Effect - Two views - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... ies below while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. I am not reversing the decision of the authorities below merely because I feel that the product of the petitioner falls under one or other item, but I am reversing the orders as in my judgment the authorities themselves were not sure as to under which item the article is liable to duty and in fact the superior officer, Superintendent, Central Excise, had decided that the product is liable to duty under item No. 15-A(2). In my judgment, the decision relied upon by the learned Councel has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In the result, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph 25 of the petition. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. 10. The petitioner has furnished bank guarantee at the time of admission of the petition. In view of judgment the bank guarantee stands discharged.
-
1979 (7) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Brand name - Affixation of Customer's brand name - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... etween the petitioners and individual manufacturers and then come to a decision whether individual manufacturers are really agents under the control of the petitioners. But the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioners holding them as the manufacturers only because of use of their brand name. It is required to be stated that use of the brand name is one of the factors which the department may take into consideration to decide whether the petitioners are really the manufacturers. But in any event that cannot be sole factors holding the petitioners as manufacturers. 6. The petitioners, therefore, are entitled to succeed in this petition. In the result the petition succeeds and the letter dated July 20, 1974 annexed at Ex. K addressed by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Thana, to the petitioners is quashed and the Superintendent is restrained from taking any action in pursuance of this letter. 7. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 97 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Cost of special packing - Special discount ... ... ... ... ..... lared by them for the purpose of assessment were mudat prices. Cash discount was offered by them to those buyers who took delivery on payment of cash. For the purpose of assessment therefore, only the wholesale cash price should be taken into account eliminating sales made on credit basis. They also relied on the decision of the Govt. of India in order No. 518 of 1970, dated 31-3-1970 in support of their contention. Govt. observe that majority of the sales were effected at mudat prices and in those cases where the buyers opted to pay in cash, cash discount was uniformly allowed. Since the basis of assessment was the wholesale cash price at the material time, Government observe that the order of the Appellate Collector permitting the deduction of special discount which is in the nature of cash discount, for arriving at the assessable value, is correct in law. 4. In view of the foregoing, Government uphold the correctness of the order-in-appeal and drop the review proceedings.
-
1979 (7) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Valuation - Quantity Trade discount - Admissibility of - Assessable value - Scope of - Appeals - Assessment
-
1979 (7) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Powers of revision can be exercised as a substitute for appeal - Revision ... ... ... ... ..... per exercise of the powers of revision under section 35A of the Act. This provision having undergone some change as a result of the amendment made by Act 25 of 1978, effective from 1-7-1978, the powers of revision of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise are vested in the Collector of Central Excise to whom the former is subordinate. whereas the Board can now exercise the powers of revision only in respect of an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise. In view of this changed position, the Government consider that it would be appropriate to remand the case to the Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal. The Government accordingly order that the case be remanded to him with the direction that the petitioners application dated 15-12-1976 made to the Board for revision in exercise of powers vested under section 35A of the Act be taken into consideration by him and decided on merits and in conformity with the provisions of section 35A of the Act.
-
1979 (7) TMI 94 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Shaving Cream (Brushless) - Classification of Tariff Item - Principles of interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... case of Subhash Chandra Nishat v. Union of India and Another 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 212) is applicable to the facts of this case. In the above-cited case, the Hon ble Court relied on the famous Canada Exchequer s Court s observation in the King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Co. Ltd. where it was held that salted peanuts and cashewnuts could not be considered to be fruits or vegetables . The test posed by the Hon ble Judge was ..... would a householder when asked to bring home fruit or vegetables for the evening meal bring home salted peanuts, cashewnuts or nuts of any sort? The answer is obviously no . 8. On the same reasoning, a householder will not bring home a tube of brushless shaving cream if asked to bring soap. 9. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 5 to 7 above, the Government hold that the Palmolive shaving cream fell outside the purview of item 15(2) of the Central Excise Tariff at the material time. In this view of the matter, the revision application is allowed.
-
1979 (7) TMI 93 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Carbon black - Whether dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... on of Item 14-I (4a) of the Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly their contention is that the assessment of the goods during the relevant period would be under the residuary item namely 14-1(5) of the Central Excise Tariff. 3. Government have carefully considered the question whether the carbod black is an organic pigment or an inorganic one. After carefully considering the literature of the subject Government observe that carbon black is an element which finds mention only in Inorganic Chemistry and that it is more appropriately classifiable as an inorganic pigment only. Since only organic pigments fall within the Item 14-I(4a) the carbon black manufactured by the petitioners would not be covered by the tariff entry. Its correct classification would accordingly be under Item 14-I(5) of the Central Excise Tariff during the relevant period. 4. The result is that the revision application succeeds and is allowed accordingly. Consequential relief may be granted to the petitioners.
-
1979 (7) TMI 92 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Shredding - Confiscation or penalty and duty liability - Powers of appellate authority ... ... ... ... ..... ally amount to reading into Section 35, the conferment of the jurisdiction of suo motu revision, which the Excises Act confers upon the revisionary authority only. The phrase confirm, alter or annul occurring in Section 35 does not include that part of the assessment order which is not the subject matter of an appeal. Even otherwise, this position has been accepted by the Government of India in the case of Sukhan Steel Re-Rolling Mills - 1978 E.L.T. (J 717), wherein the Appellate Collector s order was set aside merely on the ground that he has rejected a refund claim for the first time as time barred specially when it was not so rejected by the original authority. Even the Supreme Court in an excise matter in the case of Banshi Dhar Lachhman Prasad v. U.O.I. - 1978 E.L.T. (J 385) has held that the Appellate authority under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, cannot deprive an appellant of the favourable direction obtained by him from the original authority.
-
1979 (7) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Loose Tea - Quantity not sold by public auction ... ... ... ... ..... t of the quantity of loose tea manufactured in the factory during the said period of 3 years has been sold and that an average price of less than Rs. 6.60 per kg. has been realised for all loose tea sold at such public auction. The applicants contention that for purpose of calculating the average price the quantity of samples utilised for the auction and the quantity which could not be sold in auction but was sold afterwards by private negotiation should be taken as sold in public auction cannot be accepted as that would tantamount to widening the scope of the exemption notification. The benefit of the exemption notification clearly hinges on the certificate or the proof given by the petitioner regarding the price per kg. realised at the auction and for this purpose the quantity not sold by public auction cannot clearly be taken into account. The order-in-appeal is thus correct in law and does not require any interference. 3. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1979 (7) TMI 90 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Shells and slides used for empty cigarette packets - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... records of the case. Government observe that since duty had already been paid on shells under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and since mere gumming of the shells did not bring into existence a new and distinct product no further duty was leviable on the shells after the process of gumming. In the circumstances the review proceedings initiated against the impugned order are hereby dropped 5. So far as the slides are concerned, Government observe that slides have not been paid duty under Item 68 at all. Since slides are on the same footing as shells and are complementary to shells in the process of manufacture of empty cigarette packets and are a product distinctly known in the cigarette industry and the assessee can also get the slides manufactured by others as they have got the shells manufactured, there is no reason why duty under Item 68 should not be recovered on the slides in question. In the circumstances the revision application fails and is rejected accordingly.
-
1979 (7) TMI 89 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Seizure of goods from third party - Onus of proving "clandestine removal" ... ... ... ... ..... ble goods without payment of duty, seized from a dealer link has to be established with the manufacturer and if that is correctly established action should inter alia be taken against the manufacturer concerned. That link is clearly missing in this case and as such the onus of proof is on the Department and not on the petitioners. 3. In view of the foregoing, Government of India set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the Revision Application with consequential benefits to the petitioners.
-
1979 (7) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
Seizure - Provisional release of seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... that we need say here is that the High Courts will bear in mind the need for extreme reluctants when, during the investigation, any relief, interim or final, which has a tendency to slow down or otherwise hamper the investigation, is sought. 2. In the present case, the requirements that the prosecution put forward were readily granted by the High Court and the need for the containers which bear tell-tale testimony necessary for the investigation does not appear to have been pointed out to the High Court. We certainly agree that even while releasing the goods the Courts must be very careful to see that every condition or need that the investigator points out as essential for discharging his investigative functions, should be readily conceded by the Court unless plainly unreasonable. After all, at the stage of investigation it is risky for the Court to intervene except where manifest injustice cries for the Order of the Court. With these observations, we dismiss the petition.
-
1979 (7) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal - Limitation to start ordinarily ... ... ... ... ..... arty affected must be deemed to have known the order. In a given case, the date of putting the order in communication under certain circumstances may be taken to be the date of the communication of the order or the date of the order but ordinarily and generally speaking, the order would be effective against the person affected by it only when it comes to his knowledge either directly or constructively, otherwise not. On the facts stated in the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the respondent had no means to know about the order of the Taxation Officer rejecting his prayer until and unless he received his letter on October 29, 1964. Within the meaning of Section 15 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act that was the date of the order which gave the starting point for preferring an appeal within 30 days of that date. 3. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Power To Admit Additional Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... or evidence to be examined or affidavit to be filed or may allow such evidence to be adduced. It would be seen that under this rule the powers of the Tribunal to admit additional evidence are limited and the Tribunal has a discretion which, of course, must be exercised reasonably to refuse leave to a party to take additional evidence. The question which has been referred to us does not say that the AAC or the Appellate Tribunal failed to exercise the jurisdiction which they had under the provisions of the Act in this behalf. In our opinion, on the facts of the instant case, it cannot be held that the AAC, in refusing to give permission to adduce fresh evidence, acted arbitrarily. In regard to the Appellate Tribunal also, our view is the same and hence our answer to the question would be in the affirmative. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to Rs. 200 as costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 85 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... the court, and a decree obtained on its basis, it cannot be enforced against the party against whom it had been made. Thus, in the previous year all that existed was a mere award against the assessee, and it, at best, created a contingent liability, viz., that the liability would fructify in the event of the same being made a rule of the court. As respects the decision of this court, no decree was passed on the award by the court, and as such no liability in praesenti was created against the assessee. The liability being merely contingent, no deduction in respect thereof could be made from the income of the assessee. The decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Mathulal Baldeo Prasad 1961 42 ITR 517 (All) is not in point, for, in that case, the assessee had accepted the liability under the award. The question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... that the remuneration paid was excessive or unreasonable was purely conjectural and arbitrary. The facts that have been found here are otherwise, for what has been found is that the lady did not have any special qualification which would help in the business of the assessee-company. The facts of this case appear to be in pari materia with the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of T. B. Bottling Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1975 98 ITR 512 (Delhi), to which our attention was drawn by Sri Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the department. On the conclusions reached above we answer the question, which is to the following effect Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the remuneration paid to the director, Smt. Leelavati Garg, was unreasonable, is based on any material and whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing the salary paid to her ? in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 83 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... represented the income of the depositors and not that of the Rampur Bankers or the District Magistrate. There is a fallacy in this argument. Once money is deposited in a bank, the money held in deposit is that of the bank and it is only when a demand is made for the return of the money, and paid by the bank that the money received by the various depositors becomes their money. The depositors cannot claim any specific amount from the common fund of a bank as representing their deposit. In the present case, as the money had not been returned by the District Magistrate to the various depositors, the amount in deposit remained that of the Rampur Bankers, and the investment made, as also interest collected, of the banking company. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. We, accordingly, answer the question as refrained in the affirmative, in favour of the department, and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1979 (7) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... ystem followed by the assessee is mercantile system of accounting. The ITO did not find the method employed by the assessee to be such from which income could not properly be deduced. Another submission made on behalf of the assessee was that the real purpose is to find out the income of the assessee and it is in the discretion of the taxing authorities to apply whichever method they think proper. We are not very much impressed by this argument because of the clear provisions contained in the Act as noted above and also because of the admitted facts of the case. In our opinion, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the liability in regard to payment of bonus amounting to Rs. 15,273 arose in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1966-67 and did not relate to the assessment year 1967-68. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to Rs. 250 as costs.
-
1979 (7) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Question Of Fact, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... d treated the deposits as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal has held that Prakash Chandra Goyal was no more a driver of the assessee and has become its transport contractor. Thus, although he was not an employee of the assessee, he was intimately connected with the business of the assessee. In view of these considerations, it has upheld the inclusion of these amounts in the assessee s income. On the findings recorded the question as to whether the cash credit entries in respect of these two ladies represented the income of the assessee is one of fact. The material relied upon by the Tribunal for reaching its conclusion was relevant for the enquiry. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no material on the basis of which it could have formed that opinion. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 200.
....
|
