|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 224 Records
-
1984 (4) TMI 191
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... only of ldquo receipt and reprocessing of all their returned material rdquo apart from containing a vague reference to the discussions held as regards the ldquo remelting and remaking of fresh pistons and rings of the same category rdquo . 9. There are other such misstatements of facts in the original and revised Annexure lsquo B rsquo as well. 10. In the premises we have no hesitation in dismissing the application. 11. The Respondent had filed cross-objections under Section 35G(2) of the Act proposing certain questions stated to be of law on the issues decided against him apart from a reply to the aforesaid Reference Application. However, it was conceded in the course of the hearing that the questions for reference proposed in the cross-objections need not be referred, if the Reference Application itself were to be dismissed. Since we are not proposing to make any reference whatsoever and the Reference Application itself is dismissed, we dismiss the cross-objections as well.
-
1984 (4) TMI 190
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... this case, there was no question of issuing a demand against the manufacturer of the nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber as the assessment under Item 68 was in order and correct till 28-2-1982. But the Central Excise would still argue that the assessment had been changed for such goods and therefore the credit must not be taken. If they were logical, they should also have demanded duty from the nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber manufacturer this they obviously could not do because the assessments on the materials, all before 28-2-1982, were correct. Therefore, if the assessment under Item 68 was correct for these materials, it follows that duty credit was to be permitted under 201/79-C.E. The action to demand and recover the credit duty was wrong and we, accordingly, reject this appeal. 8. The Central Excise shall make suitable preparations within three months by restoring whatever it took or recovered from M/s. Addison Paints and Chemicals in the orignial proceedings.
-
1984 (4) TMI 186
Rubber processing - Chemicals ... ... ... ... ..... ptt. has not adduced sufficient evidence to make out that in respect of these goods, the predominant use is only as rubber processing chemical. The claim of the appellants that commodity imported has been used by them as lsquo Dye-intermediate rsquo in the manufacture of Dye-stuffs remains unrebutted. The Collector of Customs has stated in his order that only those goods which are predominantly/principally/mainly used as lsquo rubber anti-oxidant rsquo or chemicals will deserve to be classified under Item 65 C.E.T. He has relied mainly on Technical Books to conclude that the Classification under Item No. 65 C.E.T. was correct. But as already pointed out, in the absence of specific proof that these goods are predominantly used as lsquo rubber anti-oxidant rsquo , mere reliance on technical data will not suffice. Following the ruling in 1983 E.L.T. 2483 we hold that the goods cannot be classified under Item 65. They are classifiable only under 68. Appeals are therefore allowed.
-
1984 (4) TMI 185
... ...
... ... ..... )(T) A.No. 690/80-C all filed by the same appellants, the issue involved being the same. In that order, we have held that Glyoxal was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 55/75-CE. 5. ensp Shri Sundar Rajan referred to Order No. 96/84-C, dated 20th February, 1984 in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T)A. No. 92/81-C and requested that a direction may be incorporated in the order giving liberty to the Customs to make enquiry to satisfy themselves that the substance was used as a ldquo drug intermediate rdquo . We consider this a reasonable request. 6. ensp In the circumstances and following the ratio of our Order No. C-550 to 552/1983, we allow the present appeal and direct that the consequential relief shall be granted by the concerned Customs authorities to the appellants within three months from the date of communication of this order. The Customs may make enquiries, if they wish, to satisfy themselves that the imported substance was indeed used as a ldquo drug intermediate rdquo .
-
1984 (4) TMI 184
Crushed acrylic sheets ... ... ... ... ..... l Plastic Manufacturing Co., Jamnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and order-in-appeal No. CD(SB)(T)A. No. 522/78-C - Paresh Products, Jamnagar v. Collector of Customs, Bombay 1987(31) E.L.T. 308 (Tribunal). He stated that the issue in the present appeal stood concluded by the aforesaid orders and he would, therefore, not like to argue the case on merits. 4. emsp The consignment of Crushed Acrylic sheets scrap imported by the appellants was levied to additional (Countervailing) duty with reference to Item No. 15-A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. We find that this issue has already been settled by our two orders referred to by the Departmental Representative. Following the ratio of these two decisions, we hold that Crushed Acrylic Sheets Scrap imported by the appellants was not leviable to additional (Countervailing) duty with reference to Item No. 15A CET. In the result the impugned order of the Collector is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1984 (4) TMI 183
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... t the correct classification would be under Item 15A CET. It was pointed out to Shri Ohri that our Orders cited above were very detailed passed after full consideration and that in the normal course we would have to follow them. It was also pointed out to him that re-classification under an item which had not been earlier cited by the Revenue, involving a higher amount of duty, would not appear to be possible at this stage. In view of these considerations Shri Ohri did not argue in detail his contention that countervailing duty should have been under Item 15A CET. 5. ensp We find that the present case is fully covered by the decision in our Orders Nos. 537 to 539/1983D dated 26-8-1983. Following those Orders, we confirm the classification under Heading No. 39.01/06 for the levy of basic customs duty, and direct reclassification under Item 68 CET for the levy of countervailing duty, with consequential relief. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and is otherwise rejected.
-
1984 (4) TMI 182
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... According to this decision lsquo Dies Sets rsquo have been ruled as Dies sets which are not interchangeable tools would fall under heading 84.45/48 of Customs Tariff and not under heading 82.05 ICT. 4. ensp Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, D.R. after scrutiny of relevant documents including the Bill of Entry, Invoice etc. agrees that the goods in question are similar to the lsquo Dies sets rsquo which were covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. He however showed his disagreement with this order and informed that the Department would be taking resort to the appeal remedy in respect of this order. 5. ensp We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and are of the view that the lsquo Dies sets rsquo in question would be assessable under heading 84.45/48 and following the decision cited by Sh. Chaterjee we rule accordingly. The appeal is allowed in respect of this item with consequential relief to the appellants. The appeal is dismissed in respect of other items.
-
1984 (4) TMI 173
Unaccompanied baggage ... ... ... ... ..... r all these years. It was a simple case of clearing certain items which were subject to payment of duty and at no point of time the appellant had declined to pay the duty. After the goods were found by the Custom- authorities, the appellant should have been asked to pay duty according to rules and get the goods cleared. 5. We do not find that he had violated any provision of law and confiscation or imposition of penalty was absolutely uncalled for. It was a bona fide package and was liable to be cleared on payment of the requisite duty according to the rules. We do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities for confiscation of the goods or for imposing the penalty. 6. For the reasons stated aoove, we accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals). The consequential relief which flows as a result of the said decision be extended to the appellant, in particular, we refer to the duty free allowance as eligible under the rules.
-
1984 (4) TMI 170
Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... ized. 10. emsp We also considered whether there was any display. Such display had to be for sale and the Department had not succeeded in showing that any of the confiscated goods were displayed for sale. No statement has been recorded from any alleged customers. We do note that Panchnama dated 15-6-1980 (prepared at the time of search at B-11 Greater Kailash Enclave) does mention that ldquo as a result of search miscellaneous trade goods of foreign origin which were displayed in the said premises for sale ....... rdquo . This, however, does not help as there is no evidence from any independent source and the Panchnama does not itself explain how the Panchas came to the conclusion that there was display in the premises for sale. 11. In view of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Board was correct in passing their order dated 30-7-1982. The appellants have not succeeded in proving that this order was wrong. For this reason, we dismiss the appeal of the Department.
-
1984 (4) TMI 169
... ...
... ... ..... red to this Tribunal for being dealt with as an appeal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide its Order No. ED(T) (MAS) 12/78 dated 1st October, 1983 (Annexure C). 3. ensp The applicants have requested under Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 that the following question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal may be referred to the High Court. The following point of law is referred to the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ldquo Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the period of limitation of 3 months for the purpose of preferring the appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs should commence from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or from the date when the demand was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in pursuance of the order of the Collector of Central Excise. rdquo
-
1984 (4) TMI 168
Exemption subject to furnishing of bond for end use certificate ... ... ... ... ..... ons cited by Shri Sogani appeared to apply squarely to the present case and he was asked whether he could distinguish the present case from those covered by those decisions. Shri Ohri could not make such a distinction. 6. ensp In the circumstances, we consider that the appellants were entitled to have their claim examined on its merits, provided the Assistant Collector was satisfied about the end-use of the goods with reference to the certificate which has now been produced. The fact that they did not execute a bond at the time of importation should not stand in the way of their claim. We accordingly allow the appeal, and order that the appellants shall be granted consequential relief, subject however to the condition that the Assistant Collector is satisfied with reference to the end-use certificate now produced that the goods have been used in the manufacture of the goods specified against S. No. 1 of Notification No. 116/80 dated 19-6-1980. 7. ensp Announced in open court.
-
1984 (4) TMI 167
Blended fibres ... ... ... ... ..... , there is force in the appellants rsquo plea for classification of the blended goods under the alternative Item 46(4)(b). Raw wool is a natural fibre of animal origin while polyester is a synthetic or man-made fibre. What the appellants imported was a mixture or blend of these two fibres. It cannot be said that the blended material ceased to be fibre and became a manufactured textile material. As commonly understood, fibre is an un-manufactured textile material. It is really the starting raw material of the textile industry. The goods which the textile industry manufactures out of fibre come in the category of manufactured textile materials, such as yarn, fabrics, garments and other made-up articles of textiles. Since in the present case, the goods imported were nothing but blended fibres only, they remained classifiable as un-manufactured textile material under Item 46(4)(b). Accordingly, we allow the appellants rsquo claim under this item with consequential relief to them.
-
1984 (4) TMI 166
Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... es of paper pulp, stationery made of paper or paperboard, articles not elsewhere specified, of paper, paperboard, paper pulp or cellulose wadding. The scope of the group heading is further widened by Chapter Note 2 of the Customs Tariff Act which states that such articles as paper lace, paper gaskets, moulded or pressed goods of wood pulp and dress patterns are also covered by the heading. As compared to this group heading of the Customs Tariff Act, the scope of Item 17(2) Central Excise Tariff was comparatively a very narrow one as it covered only paper or paperboard, both treated and untreated. It cannot, therefore, be said that any article falling under the group Heading 48.01/21(1) Customs Tariff Act would automatically attract CV duty under Item 17(2) Central Excise Tariff. Accordingly, we uphold the appellants rsquo contention that no CV duty was chargeable on the Ribbon in question under Item 17(2) Central Excise Tariff and allow their appeal with consequential relief.
-
1984 (4) TMI 165
right to claim refund ... ... ... ... ..... power to refund or direct refund as claimed by the assessee. 4. ensp Taking the second point first, it is seen that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has already decided in a similar case of Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. P. Limited v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Madras 1978 .E.L.T. (J 630) AIR 1978 Madras 40 and is therefore, now a settled law. No reference is therefore, made on this point. 5. ensp Regarding the first point, the following question of law which arises from the Tribunal rsquo s order is referred to the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad - Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, (i) the repealed Rule 11 read with old Rule 1733 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will apply with the right to claim refund arising from the date of payment of duty or (ii) the amended Rule 11 which came into effect from 6-8-1977 will apply with reference to the date on which a claim for refund of duty was made, i.e., after 6-8-1977.
-
1984 (4) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... ) 126 ITR 377 (Bom). The Tribunal had held in that case that the manufacture of windows and door frames and concrete slabs and beams was directly related to the actual business of the company i.e., of production and construction of buildings and the assessee was an industrial company within the meaning of s. 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966. In reference the High Court has held that the Tribunal was, therefore, erroneous in its conclusion that the assessee-company fell within the definition of an lsquo industrial company as given in s. 2(7)(d) of the Finance Act, 1966. Amendment to s. 32A(2) applies from the asst. yr. 1978-79. 4. We have considered the point of industrial undertaking as well as manufacture or production of an article or thing in detail in I.T.A. No. 611/PN/1982. By following the said decision the view taken by the CIT does not appear correct and hence the order of the CIT requires to be reversed. In the result, the assessee succeeds and the appeal is allowed.
-
1984 (4) TMI 143
Assessment Order, Mercantile System, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... on 40A(5) in the context of the aforesaid remuneration is concerned, we hold that the said section has been erroneously invoked by the Commissioner. As held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. v. ITO 1983 3 SOT 40 (Bom.), the remuneration paid to a director, whether as an employee or otherwise, would fall only under section 40(c)(i) and (ii) and not under section 40A(5)(a)(i) and (ii). Shri Sathe, the learned departmental representative, without giving up the department s case, stated that he was aware of the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, which is being consistently followed by the Tribunal. 19. We too follow the said decision and hold that the sitting fees paid to director, Shri S.L. Kirloskar, in the case of the assessee-company, be examined with reference to the parameters laid down in section 40(c) and disallowance, if any, be made, accordingly. 20. In the result, the assessee-company s appeal is partly allowed.
-
1984 (4) TMI 140
... ...
... ... ..... gainst salary income was already allowed. The departmental representative argued that the standard deduction would take care of the conveyance expenses of the assessee and there was no justification for giving further deduction of Rs. 3,600. The A.R. argued that this deduction was given out of commission income which has been assessed. It is strongly argued that the assessee had to move here and there every day for earning commission and hence he has to incur expenses. The standard deduction is meant to be deducted out of the income from salary and not out of income from commission which is a different source of income. 9. We have considered the arguments of both the sides. There is force in the contention of the A.R. that the standard deduction allowed against the salary income has nothing to do with the commission income. The conveyance expenses were correctly allowed. The departmental appeal is dismissed. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the Department are dismissed.
-
1984 (4) TMI 138
Accounting Year, Beneficiaries Unknown ... ... ... ... ..... ciary was not born, the position would not be different, as on the basis of the hypothesis, that the trust came to an end, the beneficiaries are determinate and known and their shares are also known. In the present case, there is no need to make this further hypothesis, inasmuch as, the settlor s sons were born at the time when the trust deed was executed. Since the facts in the present case are absolutely in pari materia with those of C.L. Sadani Family Trust s case, we respectfully following the decision of the Special Bench, hold that the provisions of section 164 have no application to the facts of this case. The Special Bench has also discussed the legal position after the amendment with effect from 1980-81 assessment year and held, that this fact further strengthened the viewpoint that, as section 164 existed prior to the amendment, what was relevant to be seen was the position at the end of the accounting year. 9. We, therefore, allow the appeals filed by the assessee.
-
1984 (4) TMI 137
Let Out, Rental Income ... ... ... ... ..... the case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. had made it clear that the exemption is available only in respect of income derived from letting of godowns or warehouses where the purpose of letting is only storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities. It, therefore, cannot be extended to any other purpose. 9. As the departmental representative correctly pointed out, the ratio of the Tribunal s decision given for the year 1976-77 cannot be applied to the facts of the case. Therein certain premises were let out to the Apex Body of the assessee-co-operative society for marketing. The activities of the assessee has some connection with the activities of the marketing federation. In other words, the letting out is clearly for facilitating the marketing of commodities to use the expression given in section 80P(2)(e). Therefore, that case can be easily distinguished. 10. Under these circumstances, we allow the departmental appeal. The ITO s order will be restored.
-
1984 (4) TMI 134
Fixed Deposit, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... e question of recognising the balance sheet for the purpose of arriving at the true worth of the assessee. Firstly, in all these cases interest had already accrued unlike the present case and secondly, the valuation was being done under the rules. 10. These rules also throw some light on these properties. The return of wealth provides that in item 13 of Annexure VI, interest accrued due up to the valuation date should be added to the moneys lent out by way of loans and advances but no such addition is prescribed for items 7 and 10 being deposits with banks, financial corporations and co-operative societies. It appears, therefore, that the Board itself has recognised that interest which has not accrued and which is due only after the valuation date need not be estimated or added to the net wealth of the assessee. In the circumstances, we have to accept the appeal of the assessee and direct that the estimated interest added to the net wealth he deleted. The appeals are allowed.
........
|
