|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 144 Records
-
1983 (6) TMI 103
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ng, in our opinion, is not sound. Before the adjudication order, the instructions from the Board have been received. So, the Board rsquo s instructions should apply to all pending matters irrespective of the fact that the losses took place prior to 26-10-1973 (the date of Board rsquo s letter). What is important is the principle involved and the spirit behind the instructions. As has been stated earlier, if the adjudication proceedings are not completed before the receipt of Board rsquo s instructions all such proceedings should be covered by the Board rsquo s instructions. If, however, the adjudications were finally settled then, of course, the adjudicating authorities or the Appellate Authorities are not required to re-open the past cases. 9. In the above view of the matter, we allow this appeal also by setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector. The Assistant Collector shall examine the case afresh by applying Quarterly Balancing System.
-
1983 (6) TMI 102
Order and Notices ... ... ... ... ..... e General Manager of the appellant-factory at Shakarnagar, the show cause notice has been issued to them at Shakarnagar and the Assistant Collector rsquo s order has also been communicated to that address. Having initiated and accepted service of letters at the earlier stages at the factory office, it does not seem proper on the part of the appellant-company now to plead that all such notices should be served on them at their corporate office at Hyderabad. Be that as it may, we note that even on the basis of the date of receipt of the order of the Assistant Collector as 17-4-1982 (at the corporate office), the appeal has been filed more than three months from the date of receipt of the order at Hyderabad. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are not applicable to proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Thus, even on this basis, the appeal is barred by Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
-
1983 (6) TMI 101
Mis-statement or suppression of fact ... ... ... ... ..... ame was pointed by the State Excise Authorities in their letter dated 23-11-1977. It is also inconceivable that the manufacturers should pay the higher duty of 20 to the State Excise Department when they could have paid only 12 duty to the Central Excise Department. There is no reason for showing any willful suppression of facts in this case. Accordingly, we find that the appeal filed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II is not tenable and we dismiss the same. So far as the cross-objection is concerned, though the demand for duty has been partly upheld under the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), there is no mens rea on the part of the manufacturers and therefore, we find that there is no justification for the levy of penalty of Rs. 200/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, we set aside the order of penalty of the Assistant Collector and thus allow the cross-objection of M/s. Indopharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
-
1983 (6) TMI 100
Short landing of goods ... ... ... ... ..... upto this period. The appellants according to Shri Mukherjee, were entitled to landing receipt from the Port Trust authorities. Even that landing receipt has not been filed before us. Further, according to the appellants, the Food Corporation of India acted as the Agent for CARE in respect of this consignment. When that was so, the appellants at least could have produced a letter from the F.C.I. as to the number of bags received by them. No such letter has been produced. In the circumstances, if the Appellate Collector has not placed reliance on the survey report, it cannot be said that he committed any error. The Port Trust authority is a statutory body and until it is shown that the Out-turn report issued by the said statutory body is incorrect, we think we should prefer that report to the Survey Report to which neither the Port Trust nor the Customs is a party. 13. On careful consideration of all aspects, we see no merit in this appeal and accordingly, we reject the same.
-
1983 (6) TMI 93
Refund - Duty paid wrongly under the Head Union Excise Duties ... ... ... ... ..... la rsquo s arguments and his own authority as per the article written by him and published in E.L.T. 1983, Page A-143, which he urges us to follow on the interpretation of the time bar, casting all modesty to the winds. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), dated 4-11-1982, with this modification that the claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 3,504/- paid under Gate Pass No. 147, dated 26-6-1980 and P.L.A. Entry No. 85, dated 26-6-1980 should be sanctioned to the respondents as the same is not hit by the time bar. The appeal is allowed as above. We, further, find that the Cross Objection of M/s. Power Build Ltd. is not a Cross Objection in the real sense of the term, but only a statement of the defence in support of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Order, dated 4-11-1982. The Cross Objection appears to have been filed through mistake of law. It is not sustainable actually and legally and accordingly we dismiss the same.
-
1983 (6) TMI 92
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... hapter 48, they are not entitled to the benefit of this notification. However, as regards the countervailing duty, there is force in the respondent rsquo s plea. Since the goods, by themselves, are neither paper or board nor an article of plastic, their classification either under Item 17 or 15A of the Central Excise Tariff would be inappropriate. Further, since the Central Excise Tariff has no Rules of Interpretation like Rule 3(b) in the CTA and the goods are a composite material in which both the components are active components in the sense that both possess insulation properties, the appropriate Central Excise Tariff item for the goods would be the residuary Item 68. 6. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we order that the goods shall be re-assessed under Heading 39.01/06 CTA read with Item 68 CET and consequential refund shall be granted to the appellants. The proceedings initiated with the Central Government rsquo s show cause notice are disposed of accordingly.
-
1983 (6) TMI 91
Appeal within jurisdiction of Regional Bench and not to be transferred to Special Bench ... ... ... ... ..... t. The letter, dated 13-5-1982 from the CCI therefore shows that for the purposes of Import Control, the two substances are not identical. It is therefore, not possible to accept that crude emetine and emetine hydrochloride are the same. Similarly, there is no evidence produced to show that the Customs Authorities at Bombay have released papaverine hydrochloride against the licence of crude papaverine. The misdeclaration of the goods has come to light only on examination of the same. The invoice and the Bill of Entry would have escaped detection if the examining staff had not been alert. There is also no reason why an amendment should not have been obtained or why a letter of recommendation should not have been produced as sufficient time has elapsed since the import of the goods. I am therefore, unable to accept the appellants rsquo contention that the licence is valid for the goods under import. Accordingly, I confirm the Addl. Collector rsquo s order and reject the appeal.
-
1983 (6) TMI 81
... ...
... ... ..... lies who held the beneficial interest in the firm. The view taken by the AAC referred to above, which has become final, also finds support from the Supreme Court decision in (1967) 63 ITR 238 (SC) Jugal Kishore Baldeo Sahai vs. CIT, which has been followed by the Allahabad High Court in (1977) 108 ITR 818 (All) , cited supra. The mere fact that depending on the variation of the share income, the salary payment to the Kartha might appear high by comparison would not warrant the disallowance of the salary payment, once the practice of payment of such salary to the Kartha rsquo s is being accepted. It is not the department rsquo s case that the payment was bogus or illusory. At any rate there is no material brought on record to show that the salary payments in question are not genuine. In the circumstances we are of the view that the claims of the respective assessees in question for the various years have to be allowed. 4. In the result the assessee rsquo s appeals are allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 79
... ...
... ... ..... aring the ld. Departmental representative also submitted that as in this case the trust was created originally by an oral declaration and subsequently it was supplemented by a deed of Trust which apparently sought to enlarge the scope of the objects of the Trust as contained in paragraph 4 of the deed dt. 21st June,1972, the departmental authorities may also consider the question as to whether it would be considered to be a deed in writing and also whether it could validly enlarge the objects of the trust by adding some more objects which were not in the original declaration. We agree that the departmental authorities may also go into this aspect before finally disposing of the assessee rsquo s claim. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and that of the ITO for both the years and direct the ITO to reconsider the whole case in the light of our observations and directions contained above. 6. For the purpose of statistics the appeals are treated as allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 76
... ...
... ... ..... The departmental representative argued that the service is quite proper, that in any event it is only an irregularity, that therefore, it is unable u/s 42C (Return of wealth, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds) of WT Act and that it being at worst only a case of reversion or passed without an opportunity of bring heard, the appropriate order to be passed by the Tribunal is not cancellation but only remand. 4. We disagree. The vital defect of non-compliance with O.V.R. 19 is not an irregularity curable u/s 42C of the WT Act. It is not an irregularity but an illegality and a legal infirmity which cannot be cured by any provision of law. The revision orders being one passed without opportunity of being heard, it is void ab initio from the very beginning, and, therefore, the most appropriate orders are not remand but cancellation itself. So these orders are cancelled. 5. All the twelve appeals are allowed. The revision orders of the CWT for all these years are cancelled.
-
1983 (6) TMI 74
... ...
... ... ..... date. The WTO observed that the assessee did not adduce any evidence that the value of the shares had gone down in the year of acquisition itself. The assessee also did not make available to the WTO the balance sheet of Lake Shore Palace Hotel to work out the correct value in terms of r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957. In the absence of such details, he adopted the purchase price of Rs. 87,565 as the market value of the shares on the valuation date. The CWT(A) has upheld the value adopted by the WTO. No evidence has been furnished before us either on behalf of the assessee to show that the value had fallen below the cost price in the year of acquisition itself. The balance sheet of the company i.e., Lake Shore Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd., has also not been filed to admit valuation of the shares under r. 1D of the WT Rules, 1957. In such circumstances, we decline to interfere with the orders of the authorities below and sustain the value. 12. In the result the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 73
... ...
... ... ..... e Inspector during the course of assessment proceedings have also made the same statements. On the face of such statements by the workers, during the course of assessment proceedings which were recorded at the initiative of the department itself, we are unable to accept the departmental contention that the manufacturing wages on account of Jhalai expenses have been inflated. The authorities below have also no material on record to show that the expenses claimed on account of Jhalai for the assessment year under appeal were excessive as compared to similar claim for the preceding assessment year and whether such claims in the past were not accepted, in the absence of which, we are also unable to sustain the addition. For the detailed reasons given above, we do not find any justification to sustain the addition. The order of the ld. CIT (A) is, therefore, reversed. The assessee will be entitled to relief of Rs. 86,720 on this point. 7.In the result the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 72
Appeal To CIT(A), Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... assessee rightly preferred the application under section 154 to the ITO who passed the order under section 132(5). Having preferred a valid application under section 154, when an adverse order in the shape of a letter was received, it was competent for the assessee to file an appeal. The assessee having filed a valid appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) was bound to decide the appeal on merits which has not been done in the present case. We would, accordingly, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the appeal to his file. He will decide the appeal afresh on merits. 6. Before parting with the present appeal, we may state that the learned counsel represented before us that the matter has now been pending for a long time and the assets lie seized with the revenue. We are certain that the Commissioner (Appeals) would dispose of the restored appeal as expeditiously as may be convenient. 7. The result is, the appeal is allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 71
Application For Registration, Assessment Year, In Part ... ... ... ... ..... e no difference to our conclusion as it should be presumed that the office of the official receiver continued without any interruption. Our conclusion is based on the fact that whether the assessment was made on the official receiver rightly or wrongly, it is open to the appellant, Shri Chittaluri Peda Venkata Subbaiah as a person interested in the assessment, to agitate against such assessment. It is a right specifically conferred on him under section 246. In this view, we have to set aside the order of the first appellate authority and direct him to admit the appeal and deal with the same in accordance with law. Arguments were addressed by both sides on merits. But, we do not propose to deal with them as we cannot obviously go into them when the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal in limine and not on merits. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The first appellate authority is directed to admit the appeal and to deal with the same in accordance with law.
-
1983 (6) TMI 70
Assessment Year, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... ection that the wealth-tax assessment order passed by the WTO in the case of the assessee-HUF being contrary to the provisions of section 20(1), is null and void. We hold likewise. 7. The decisions relied upon by the departmental representative above are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the partition was not partition as a whole but those cases were of partial partition. Even in respect of the partial partitions, section 20A of the Act, which was added by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with effect from 1-4-1980, the position would be somewhat similar to that (sic) in the matter of assessment after partition as a whole of a HUF as provided in section 20(1). 8. Having come to the above conclusion, we need not express our opinion on the ground of appeal raised by the revenue regarding the inclusion of the sum of Rs. 2,74,500 to the net wealth of the assessee-HUF. 9. In the result, the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed and the appeal by the revenue is dismissed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 69
Assessee's Appeal, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ainst that part of the order dated 23-3-1979 could not be the subject-matter of the appeal by the assessee before the AAC against the order of the ITO under section 154 dated 26-9-1980. The only point which could be agitated before the AAC in the appeal against the order of the ITO under section 154 dated 26-9-1980 would be regarding the quantum of the penalty levied which by virtue of the said order was enhanced from Rs. 2,454 to Rs. 14,810. The appellate jurisdiction of the AAC could not go beyond that so as to hold that the order of the ITO under section 271(1)(c) dated23-3-1979regarding the commission of the offence under section 271(1)(c), which had become final having been not appealed against, was bad. The assessee has not been able to show that the quantum of the penalty levied by the ITO under section 154 is wrong. We, therefore, while cancelling the order of the AAC, restore that of the ITO in the present case. 7. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 68
Appellate Authority, Assessment Order, Development Allowance, President Of Tribunal, Weighted Deduction
-
1983 (6) TMI 67
A Firm, Agricultural Income, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... From this Mr. Nagarajan wants me to infer that the guarantee agreement is only for the services rendered as all the lands of all the partnership firms have been jointly cultivated. I do not know that such an inference is possible. On the other hand, as rightly pointed out by the AAC, whole agricultural operations in the four farms seem to have been carried out as a single collective operation. According to me this finding supports all that I have already stated above regarding the nature of the transaction in question. 21. I, therefore, hold that the income received by the assessees which has the characteristics of agricultural income continued to be so and at no stage its character was converted into anything other than agricultural income. In this view of the matter, I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Accountant Member. The matter will now go back to the Bench which heard the appeals originally for deciding the issue in conformity with the majority view.
-
1983 (6) TMI 66
... ...
... ... ..... he considered opinion that on each of the counts (a) that the amounts shown by the assessee s firm as due from Export Promotion Council were not for the purpose of its accounting amounts due and, therefore, would not enter in the final accounts of the firm in which the assessee was a partner (b) that in computing the net wealth of the assessee, assessee s share in the assets of the firm could not be determined by the WTO by making adjustment to the balance-sheet of the firm as done by him (c) that on the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee did not have that type of right, title and interest in the amounts shown as cash incentives which would form an asset within the meaning of the word asset defined in the Act so as to justify its inclusion in total wealth of the assessee. 18. In view of what is held above, we delete in each of the assessee s case the amount added by the WTO/IAC by way of cash incentives due to the assessee. 19. Appeals allowed.
-
1983 (6) TMI 65
... ...
... ... ..... under consideration goes, setting off of the depreciation carried forward against the income which was held to be income taxable u/s 56 by the ITO was apparently erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. No doubt, if finally it is decided that the income is taxable as business income on which issue the assessee is in appeal, the set off of depreciation has also to be allowed but this will only follow such a decision. At present and in view of the assessment order passed by the ITO, the setting of Rs. 24,398 against the income from other source was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since we have held in the quantum appeal of the assessee that its income is to be treated from business and not from other sources, the order of the CIT looses it basis as per his own observations, given above. The assessee s appeal, therefore, in this respect is also accepted. 9. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed.
|
