|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 318 Records
-
1984 (3) TMI 383 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oms duty as envisaged in heading 85(15) of the Customs Tariff Act read with the aforesaid notification. Shri R.G. Verma and Shri K.D. Mindawat appearing on behalf of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, New Delhi have produced the relevant catalogue to show that the goods in question are component parts of the apparatus for wireless reception incorporated in single unit with transmission apparatus. Even though they may be used as spare parts their life span is about 10,000 hours. Though they may be for maintenance apparatus in fact they are component parts of the main equipment. The learned Departmental Representative after examining the various documents and the various parts has agreed that the items are the component parts of the Radio Telecommunication unit and as such are eligible for the concessional rate of duty under the sub-item 2 of the said notification. In the circumstances the order in-appeal passed by the Collector is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 382 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e goods in question are parts of safety valves and they produced a technical write-up as well as catalogues in support of their claims. Shri R. Subramanian appearing on behalf of the appellants further added that the goods in question have been imported along with Safety valve and have been given special shape and quality as component parts thereof. The nozzle is a machined item made of special alloy steel and the disc is of steel casting which is finally machined to size with reference to normal temperature and pressure and load burden. Safety valves are used for relieving any overburden of steam pressure on the high pressure steam pipe lines. Since the goods in question are component parts they should also be assessed under heading 84.61(2). Shri Chandramouli, the learned S.D.R. has agreed that the goods should be assessable under the said item namely 84.61(2). The Bench having considered the same orders re-assessment under heading 84.61(2) and orders consequential refund.
-
1984 (3) TMI 381 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... emains that the disputed quantity of this sugar was actually removed from the appellants’ factory after 16-8-1978. Rule 9A(1)(ii) is specific inasmuch as it lays down that in the case of goods cleared from a factory, the rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, shall be as on the date of the actual removal of such goods from such factory. The sugar which was stored in a duty paid godown within the factory on 14-8-1978 cannot be regarded as having been actually removed from the factory on that date. Rule 9A(5) referred to by the Department’s representative is a residuary provision and when the case is covered specifically by Rule 9A(1)(ii), the residuary provision cannot apply. We, therefore, order that the demand for differential duty against the appellants should be re-assessed according to the rate of duty and valuation in force as on the date of the actual removal of the subject sugar from the appellants’ factory. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1984 (3) TMI 380 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... gue. 15. We do not consider it necessary to discuss the Central Government’s order-in-revision dated 2-4-1980 (copy filed by the JDR) which was on a branded product of another manufacturer. 16. Note 1(a) to Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Schedule, 1975 provides that “except where the context or these Notes otherwise requires or require, this Chapter is to be taken to apply only to (a) Separate chemical elements and separate chemically defined corn-pounds, whether or not containing impurities ;". There is no doubt that the subject product which contains added ingredients and is coated or surface treated, (as we have seen) is excluded from Chapter 28. Keeping in view the Explanatory Notes to headings 28.25 and 32.07 of the CCCN, the appropriate classification is, in our view, under heading 32.04/12(1). 17. In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby rejected. 18. A copy of this Order shall be placed on each of the appeal files.
-
1984 (3) TMI 379 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... uter race, the cage is simply incapable of taking the required load; it would break in the process. The words “all sorts” in Tariff Item 49 referred to various types of complete rolling bearings. They cannot have the effect of including parts and components of bearings within the scope of this item. The appellants are right in pointing out that wherever the tariff entry sought to include the parts also within its scope, it had been done by specific mention of parts in the entry, as for example in Tariff Items 29A, 30 and 31. Since Item 49 does not include parts and there is no other appropriate tariff entry for parts of rolling bearings, we hold that needle roller cages are correctly classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68. Since we find ourselves in agreement with the substantive ground taken by the appellants, we do not consider it necessary to go into their other pleas. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1984 (3) TMI 378 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... isionally as non-dutiable ............”. However, it was stated by Shri Kapoor, and not controverted by any evidence, that there was no formal provisional assessment, with bond, etc., as laid down in Rule 9B. It, therefore, appears that the words “provisionally approved” were only used as a measure of caution and do not have any legal significance). 14. In these circumstances, it appears to us that Rule 10A was not applicable, and that the case was covered by Rule 10. This being so, the show cause notice could only cover demands up to a period of one year before its date, that is, with effect from 1-5-1976. Demands for the earlier period would be time-barred. 15. In the result, while holding that the steam in question was not eligible for the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 118/75, we also hold that the demand for duty shall be enforceable only for the period from 1-5-1976. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential relief.
-
1984 (3) TMI 377 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the pack sheets are stitched up around the contents, the sheets themselves assume the shape of a bag like contraption. Such a bag would be an item of jute manufacture in its own right and, consequently, the pack sheets and the twine used in preparing the bag would have to be treated as having been used in the manufacture of that bag. In that case, the stitching twine would clearly have been used in the manufacture of that bag (Vide Notification No. 56/72-C.E.) and the bag itself treated as having been exported along with the contents under bond. In this view of the matter also, there would be no duty liability on the respondents. 11. Since we agree with the respondents that on the substantive ground the demand served on them cannot stand, we do not consider it necessary to go into the time-bar issue raised by the Department’s representative. Accordingly, we reject the Department’s appeal by discharging the show cause notice issued by the Central Government.
-
1984 (3) TMI 376 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd.(supra). 27. We also do not find any authority of the Supreme Court laying down that a general period of three years under the Limitation Act would be applicable to applications under section 27 of the Act. We, therefore, find the argument that law laid down by the Supreme Court in similar legislation should apply is misconceived because no judgment of the Supreme Court has been cited which could support the contention about availability of general period of limitation before statutory authorities. We rather find that sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Act clinches the matter beyond all doubt, by unambiguously laying down no application for refund, can be entertained except under section 27. 28. In the result, we are constrained to dismiss the appeal, confirming the stand of the lower authorities about the applications for refund being barred by limitation, in view of the provision of section 27(1) of the Act, and hold the same to have been rightly rejected.
-
1984 (3) TMI 375 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... visions of the Act, because, according to him, he was ignorant of the relevant law. Though ignorance of law is no excuse, but at the same time, it is a factor to be taken into consideration while imposing the penalty. Section 50 of the Act, inter alia provides for the minimum penalty of ₹ 5,000/-, for the contravention of the provisions of the Act. The exercise of the discretion in imposing the penalty involves the question of law as held by the Karnataka High Court in Sudershan Boury’s case (supra). I find that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the penalty of ₹ 5,000/- will meet the ends of justice; particularly when the foreign exchange has also been confiscated from the appellant. 10. As a result of the above discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellant will be entitled to the refund of ₹ 15,000/- out of the sum of ₹ 20.000/- if already deposited by him by way of penalty.
-
1984 (3) TMI 374 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... side, provided they can be considered as attached or auxiliary to the building or part of it. A rubber hose pipe is not used for the purpose of fitting or fixing to the floor or wall of a building. Rubber hose pipe would therefore, not be covered by the expression of all types of pipes and pipe fittings as contained in entries Nos. 77 and 63, referred to above. Once it is found that the rubber hoses does not fall within the ambit of the aforesaid entries it must necessarily fall in the residual entry because it is not the case of the department that it is covered by any other entry. It must, therefore, be held that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the turnover of Rs. 5,464 being of hoses was leviable at the general rate of 6 per cent and not at the rate of 10 per cent. The question referred to is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1984 (3) TMI 373 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ection 2(cc). In view of aforesaid decision of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer, Survey and Investigation, Jodhpur v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, Jodhpur 1980 45 STC 18 and the decision of the Supreme Court in District Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Jodhpur v. Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer 1976 37 STC 423 (SC), it must be held that the disposal of coalash by auction or contract is incidental or ancillary to the trade of Western Railway and the Western Railway has been rightly held liable to pay sales tax on the sales of coal-ash. Question No. (i) referred by the Board of Revenue must, therefore, be answered in favour of the department and against the petitioners. In the result question No. (i) is answered in the affirmative and questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) are returned unanswered for the reason that the reference in relation to the aforesaid questions was incompetent. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1984 (3) TMI 372 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thout giving a written notice to the dealer, for example, the assessing authority or any other officer may visit the premises of the dealer and inspect the books of accounts at his premises in the presence of the dealer, in which case no written notice may be necessary. The requirement as contained in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 10, about making an inquiry, if the assessing authority considers such an inquiry necessary, cannot, therefore, be construed to imply an obligation in every case to give a written notice to the dealer before making a best judgment assessment. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that it was necessary to issue a written notice to the assessee while passing an order under section 10 of the Act when the assessee had not filed any return under section 7 read with rule 25 of the Rules. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1984 (3) TMI 371 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n passed in the revision petition. This is more so in view of the specific provisions contained in sub-section (5) of section 14 of the Act which empowers the Board of Revenue to stay the recovery of the disputed amount of tax or any part thereof pending the disposal of the revision petition. Since the revision petition was being dismissed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue on 27th November, 1970, the interim stay order passed in the revision petition could not be extended beyond 27th November, 1970. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was not right in ordering for continuation of the interim order staying the recovery proceedings till the disposal of the appeal to be filed by the respondent notwithstanding the rejection of the revision petition on the ground of non-maintainability. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1984 (3) TMI 370 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nor considered by it, it will not be a question arising out of its order notwithstanding that it may arise on the findings given by it. Applying the aforesaid tests laid down by the Supreme Court if the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12th March, 1970, is examined, it must be held that the present case falls within proposition No. (4) laid down above, because in the present case the questions which have been referred to this Court for opinion, were neither raised before the Board of Revenue, nor were they considered by it in its order dated 12th March, 1970. It must, therefore, be concluded that the questions of law which have been referred to this Court do not arise out of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12th March, 1970. In the circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Mehta must be accepted and it must be held that the reference is incompetent and it is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
1984 (3) TMI 369 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng on the basis that there has been a sale of old iron scrap materials from the Life Insurance Corporation of India, to the assessee. Admittedly, the Life Insurance Corporation of India did not sell the old iron scrap materials but they have merely sold the superstructures to the assessee for the purposes of demolition and for clearing the debris. The contract for demolition of the superstructures and clearance of debris cannot be split up as a sale of timber, as a sale of old iron scrap, and as sale of bricks, etc. Therefore, we are of the view, that there has been no sale of old iron scrap materials as such by the Life Insurance Corporation of India to the assessee and hence the assessee s sale of old iron scrap materials should alone be taken as the first sale inside the State. Hence, the assessee s liability to pay tax on his sales of old iron scrap materials cannot be legally questioned. This tax case appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1984 (3) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The assessment which has been accepted for decades should not ordinarily be revised without compelling reason and that too, when the dealer was made to believe by the assessing authority that he could collect a particular rate. Any revision of that rate retrospectively by differing opinions would be highly oppressive if not illegitimate. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner without expressing any final opinion that trichloroethylene is a heavy chemical falling under item No. 79 of the Second Schedule to the Act . 19.. The question as on to-day is really academic since the Legislature has amended item No. 79 with effect from 1st September, 1978. The matter, therefore, deserves to be left to rest there. 20.. In the result, these revision petitions are allowed. In reversal of the orders of the Tribunal and the Deputy Commissioner, the assessment orders are restored. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 367 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the property in goods passed to the purchasing dealers immediately with the fall of the hammer and the contract of sale being complete, condition No. 8 of the terms and conditions of auction became part of the said contract and therefore, it would have to be taken that the purchasing dealers gave an undertaking to transfer the goods outside the State, and were bound to furnish declaration in C form at the appropriate time in compliance with condition No. 8. If the purchasing dealers thereafter, for whatever reason, failed to furnish declaration in form C then that would amount to breach of condition No. 8 and thus breach of term in terms of the said condition and would render the said dealer liable to such action as would be permissible under the law. In view of the above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in regard to such sales as had taken place up to 19th January, 1969. No costs.
-
1984 (3) TMI 366 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nover. That undoubtedly was within its domain. The Assessing Authority cannot be called upon to prove conclusively what turnover had the assessee suppressed since it was the duty of the assessee to place all the facts truthfully before the Assessing Authority as those were within his personal knowledge. The explanation rendered by the assessee was rejected. The Assessing Authority had thus inevitably to indulge in guess-work. It could not be said that the conclusion arrived by it was with any bias, or was irrational, vindictive or capricious. The view expressed by the Assessing Authority, which was affirmed by the Tribunal, fully satisfies the tests as laid down by the Supreme Court in the afore quoted case. This is our considered opinion. For the foregoing reasons, the question referred to us for opinion is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL, J.-I agree.
-
1984 (3) TMI 365 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nditions are fulfilled, it is apparent that the sales in question made by the opposite party to the State Trading Corporation shall be in the course of export as contemplated by sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act and shall not be treated as inter-State sale and the opposite party shall be liable to pay tax under section 3-AAAA of the Act. In the result both these revisions succeed and are allowed and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal dated 14th October, 1982 allowing the two second appeals filed by the opposite party in respect of the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 are set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide these two second appeals afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made above, on the basis of the material already existing on record. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. A copy of this order may be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated by section 11(8) of the Act.
-
1984 (3) TMI 364 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve retrospective effect to the definition of business introduced by the amending Act. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court fully covers the present case. Shri Sharma has also invited our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Coimbatore Division, Coimbatore v. Vijayalakshmi Mills Ltd. 1977 40 STC 463. In that case the sales of unserviceable machinery by the assessee, who was a manufacturer of cotton yarn, was held to be liable to sales tax on the ground that the said sale was in the course of business. In the view of the decisions referred to above, it must be said that the sales by the assessee of machinery, iron, steel defectives and the spare parts were made in the course of business of the assessee could be considered as business within the meaning of section 2(cc) of the Act. The question referred to is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
........
|
