|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 189 Records
-
1986 (10) TMI 147
Exemption to goods on the basis of their use ... ... ... ... ..... ather industry, would not merit exemption under the relevant Notification, as use of the material for purpose of embellishment for footwear was held to be a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of that Notification. It was pointed out that if the intention were to grant the benefit of the exemption to an article capable of being used as an embellishment, then it was not necessary to provide in the Notification that it should be used in the leather industry. It was further emphasized in the order of the Tribunal that it is for the assessee who claims exemption to establish the claim. The onus was on the appellants to show that the impugned products in question were not a functional commodity but an embellishment ordinarily used in the leather industry. 11. emsp Respectfully, concurring with the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ashish and Co. and Others (supra), and in the light of the foregoing discussion, this appeal has to fail, and is dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 146
Customs - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... us are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the decision of the Supreme Court, since in the appeals before us the collection of duty cannot be said to have been under an invalid or ultra-vires provision and therefore outside the statute. 8. emsp So far as decision of the Bombay High Court cited supra wer may note that the said decision also dealt with the powers of a High Court exercising powers under its writ jurisdiction to grant relief without reference to the statutory provision regarding limitation. As mentioned earlier the powers of the lower authorities in the appeals before us as well as our own powers are derived under the Customs Act and the claims of the appellants have to be disposed of with reference to the provisions of that Act. We are therefore of the view that the orders of the lower authorities rejecting the refund claims of the appellants as barred by Limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act were correct. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 145
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... l of the appellants that, in the case of other two clearances, which are the subject-matter of Appeals No. 1973/86-B2 and 1974/86-B2, a much lower rate has been applied though the imports there were also in the same year and the same tariff item, T.I. 26AA of C.E.T., has been applied in all the three cases. He, therefore, requests that the matter may be remanded so far as assessment of C.V. duty under B/E 1154, dated 8-12-1977, is concerned, for re-examination as to the quantum of rate of C.V. Duty applicable. We accept this prayer in the circumstances, and allow Appeal No. 1118/798B2, only to this limited extent namely, that the matter of assessment of rate of C.V. Duty in respect of this Bill of Entry shall be re-examined after notice to the appellants, and for this purpose, matter is remanded to Assistant Collector of Customs, who shall re-adjudicate on this question of rate, and quantom, of C.V. Duty payable in this case, within four months. (Pronounced in the Open Court)
-
1986 (10) TMI 144
Stencil skin being “goods” Liable to excise duty ... ... ... ... ..... 8 and not under Item 17(2) prior to the amendment with effect from 27-2-1982. 25. emsp We have carefully considered the arguments of Shri Sundar Rajan that even according to the judgment in Khoday Industries Ltd. (supra) once held as coated paper, the paper falls only under Item 17(2) C.E.T.. He made a special reference to paragraph 13 of the judgment. However, this argument would be relevant only if the lsquo stencil skin rsquo is held to be paper. The overwhelming case law cited, by Shri Soli Sorabjee leads us to the finding that lsquo stencil skin rsquo cannot be considered as lsquo paper rsquo . We therefore hold that it is not classifiable under Item 17(2) of C.E.T. but being manufactured goods it is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68 C.E.T. 26. emsp As a result, we hold that the ldquo stencil skin rdquo is ldquo goods rdquo and that it is not ldquo paper rdquo and that it is correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 68. 27. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1986 (10) TMI 143
Import - Issue of letter of authority, not a transfer of licence ... ... ... ... ..... ound in the Public Notice No. 48 of 1980. The Collector rsquo s interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment in case of M/s. Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. is inapt. The Supreme Court has categorically held that Public Notice is non-statutory and it has no retrospective effect. The same view was taken by the Bombay High Court in M/s. Stretch Fibres Ltd. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 400 (Bom.). 21. emsp On careful consideration of all the aspects, we hold Point No. 3 that Palm stearin is not a type of palm oil, and we further hold that it was not canalised during the policy A.M. 80-81. On Point No. 4, we hold that Public Notice 48 of 80, dated 9-12-1980 is not retrospective and it does not come into effect from the date of publication of the policy A.M. 81 but is only prospective. 22. emsp In the result, for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector. The penalty, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.
-
1986 (10) TMI 142
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... are of the situation where a practice had developed generally under which no duty was being charged on the metal containers so long as the containers manufactured were without the aid of power but the printing, coating etc. of the sheets out of which containers were manufactured, was done with the aid of power though in a unit other than the one where the containers were manufactured. It was to take care of this peculiar contingency to give relief to the manufacturers who had been clearing the goods based on this practice and to obviate the burden of levy on them on a strict reading of the term lsquo manufacture rsquo whereby processes incidental or ancilliary to the process of manufacture of tins would bring them within the ambit of levy of the Central Excise duty. In view of the above, I hold that the benefit of the notification is available in respect of the appellants. In view of the majority opinion, we recalled Order No. D-438/85, dated 11-12-1985, and allow the appeal.
-
1986 (10) TMI 141
Gold - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o Section 16(5)(b) has been considered in the rulings of the High Courts and negatived. In the instant case the admitted fact remains that appellant. Govinda Rao was in possession of 22 gold coins (sovereigns) besides 835 gms. of gold ornaments and in such a situation the only Section that would be applicable is Section 16(5)(b) of the Act. Therefore, following the ratio of the abovesaid rulings and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold that no statutory obligation is cast on the appellant to make a declaration in respect of the gold coins (sovereigns) under seizure. I therefore hold that the impugned order appealed against is not legally sustainable and the same is therefore set aside and the appeal No. 165/86 is allowed. Since the appellants in the other appeals are only claimants, in the view I have taken in respect of the appeal relating to Govinda Rao (No. 165/86), the appeals of the other claimants (viz. Nos. 166 to 169/86) are dismissed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 116
Project imports ... ... ... ... ..... or such a benefit before the date of clearance. In paragraph 21 of the said Order, it was stated as follows ldquo As against that, the view has been constantly held that where even an application for registration was not made, the question of allowing benefit of project import, on a subsequent application being made to that effect, did not arise. This proposition was set by the Tribunal as early as in an appeal decided on 27-5-1983, reported in 1983-ECR-923-D (CEGAT) rsquo in the case of lsquo Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. Adrash Products Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. We find no reason to differ from the view taken at that time. rdquo 15. emsp Following the ratio of this judgment and in the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the authorities below. The appellants are, quite clearly, not entitled to the concessional assessment of the imported goods in this case and to the consequent refund. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1986 (10) TMI 115
Appeal against the communication/letter of Department refusing to grant relief maintainable ... ... ... ... ..... ject the appeal on the ground that the communication by the Collector did not amount to a decision or order against which no appeal lay under the provisions of the Act. 10. emsp It is not necessary at present to go into the question whether the conclusion of the Board as to the effect of the omission on the part of the appellants to file an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was correct or not. We are at present concerned only with this preliminary objection that the letter of the Collector not being a decision or order no appeal lay against the same to the Board and, consequently, as claimed by Shri Doiphode, even the order of the Board dated 30-10-1980 was not in law an order against which any revision would lie under the Act. 11. For the reasons stated earlier we hold that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the department is without merits. The same is accordingly over ruled and appeal is directed to be posted for hearing on merits on 1-12-1986.
-
1986 (10) TMI 114
Appeal - Written submissions with new points not allowable. ... ... ... ... ..... ral Board of Excise and Customs letter No. Rubber-5/68, dated 14-8-1968, according to which, instructions had been issued that Latex Foam Sponze should be assessed without cover. The learned Departmental Representative has not disputed or denied the existence of such instructions. What is more, we are unable to accept that the kind of covering, which is provided by the appellants can be considered of such a nature as to form an essential part of the manufactured product. Appellants have contended before us that such packing was optional. This again has not been disputed us by the Departmental Representative. In view of these facts, the charge that the appellants collected a higher price than approved by the department and were, therefore, liable to pay duty on the difference must also fail. 12. In view of the above findings, there is no justification for the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-, which also has to be set aside. 13. Appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1986 (10) TMI 113
When appeal time barred hearing meaningless. ... ... ... ... ..... es the grant of hearing would have been meaningless. The principles of natural justice do not require that an opportunity for the hearing should have been given to the appellants when their appeals were time barred. As observed by the Supreme Court in Shri K.L. Tripathi v. The State Bank of India AIR - 1984 - SC Page 273, the rules of natural justice are flexible and cannot be put on any rigid formula. Considering therefore the fact that the appeals were time barred and the delay could not be condoned by the Board, we hold that there was no lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice in denying hearings to the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances. In the foregoing view, we find that the Board rsquo s orders rejecting the respective appeals as time barred under old Section 128 are correct. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Tribunal to consider the merits in the present appeals. We, therefore, reject the same for the reasons mentioned above.
-
1986 (10) TMI 112
Fabrics - Tubular knitted fabrics used in the manufacture of hosiery articles - ... ... ... ... ..... certaining the value of the goods with reference to which duty has been evaded and the quantum of duty evaded. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the order of the lower authorities are set aside holding i) emsp that no duty was payable with reference to the quantity of 6124.975 kg. of woollen knitted fabrics in stock in the tailoring section on 1.3.1979 ii) emsp with reference to the balance of quantity also duty will have to be assessed in terms of Rule 9A(l)(ii) Central Excise Rules having regard to the dates of removal and the rate of duty on such dates iii) emsp that the quantum of penalty as well as redemption fine will have to be re-determined after ascertaining the value of the goods with reference to which duty has been evaded and the duty payable thereon aid iv) emsp that the matter will have to be therefore remitted to the Collector for adjudication and passing orders afresh in the light of the above directions. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1986 (10) TMI 100
Interest Income, Interest Payable, Liability To Deduct Tax, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... for payment of tax deducted at source would recur from the date of credit of interest made constructively to the account of the payee. 11. In this connection it is needless to mention that profit or loss arises in respect of each and every transaction of each and every branch of business and, therefore, the liability to deduct tax at source arises as and when interest income is credited to the account of the payee even in respect of branch accounts and the head office only consolidates the accounts and arrives at the balance of a particular payee and, consequently, determines the quantum interest receivable or payable. In this view of the matter, following respectfully the ratio of the Madras High Court decision cited supra, we hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in his reasons and conclusions and directions given to the ITO. Consequently, we reverse the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the orders of the ITO. 12. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 98
Interest Income, Interest Payable, Liability To Deduct Tax, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... en as the basis for bringing the assessee s case within the ambit of the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) as it introduced on element of artificially. In the assessee s case, the bottles are purchased in bulk and leased out in bulk. They are always handled only in bulk. Though, each bottle, theoretically fulfills a particular purpose, they become plant in the assessee s business only when they are used in bulk. In view of the factual position obtaining in the assessee s case it is not correct to artificially segregate each bottle, as if each bottle is operated by the assessee as a separate plant in order to allow depreciation at 100 per cent under the first proviso to section 32(1)(ii). In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that while the assessee is entitled to normal depreciation under rules by treating the bottles as plant , it will not be entitled to depreciation at 100 per cent under first proviso to section 32(1)(ii). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... is extra amount of interest added in the hands of the assessee was claimed. This indirectly means that the assessee did not get any deduction in respect of his share of income from the firm on account of his interest which is now being added to his income being the interest accruing to his minor son. This argument also appears to be plausible. If the entire interest is to be added in the assessee s hands, the assessee s share of income from the firm would naturally stand reduced. I am not commenting upon the assessment of the firm but here is a case of the assessee himself whose share is being increased because he did not claim any deduction on account of payment of this interest which is being added to his income as having accrued to his minor son. Therefore, certainly the assessee is entitled to re-adjustment of his share of income. The ITO will make corresponding re-adjustment in the light of my aforesaid observation. 4. In the result the appeal is partly allowed as above.
-
1986 (10) TMI 95
... ...
... ... ..... ropped if the apparent consideration of the immovable property is below Rs. 5 lakhs. 5. It is obvious that the intention of the CBDT and the Finance Department is not to take acquisition proceedings in respect of minor sales, the consideration whereof is not very high. We have already gone through some of the reasons which fully justified the consideration shown by the parties in the sale-deeds in question. Were it not the one of the tenants did not object to these sales, probably no proceedings would been taken in the matters at all. It may be correct that after the sales since the tenants would be in the risk of being rejected from the shops in question, they may be prepared to purchase the shops at higher value. But keeping in view the over all circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the shops were sold at gross undervalues. Accordingly, we accept these appeals and cancel the orders of acquisition passed by the IAC (Acq). 6. In the result the appeals are allowed.
-
1986 (10) TMI 94
... ...
... ... ..... ous that the cost to the assessee on which depreciation has to be allowed shall be the cost in the hands of the previous owner, namely, the firm New Tej Talkies less the depreciation as was already allowed to that firm. This actual cost shall not undergo any change under any circumstances unless and until the transaction is one of sale and as has been observed by their Lordships in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT 1979 120 ITR 49 (SC) read with their Lordships view in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai, the only plausible conclusion is that the written down value in the instant case has to be taken to be Rs. 76,931 which is the written down value after allowing of depreciation in the hands of the earlier firm New Tej Talkies as it is not a sale by New Tej Talkies to the assessee-firm via Mr. Narain M. Punjabi. 8. In the result, the appeal of the department, therefore, succeeds resulting in quashing of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring that of the ITO.
-
1986 (10) TMI 93
Assessment Year, Contract Business, Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... decision, with which we are bound, we have to take a contrary view from the one expressed by the learned Members in the two Special Bench cases referred to by the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee appealed to the first appellate authority in respect of his contract business only on which certain additions were made and the first appellate authority did not suo motu look into the dealings in respect of the rice, etc. Therefore, the facts and circumstances are the same as the ones which were before their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court, supra. Even on the legal issue the assessee does not seem to have any merit in the present appeal and on this basis respectfully following the Rajasthan High Court decision we have to hold that there was no merger of the order of the ITO in respect of dealings in rice which was not appealed and thereby the action of the Commissioner in invoking his powers under section 263 is fully justified. We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.
-
1986 (10) TMI 92
... ...
... ... ..... ntee bond or obtained a fixed sum by way of security deposit per cop. However, in the case before us we do not have the facts and, therefore, cannot ascertain whether the property in the cops continued to vest in S.T.C. or the cops were sold alongwith the yarn to the purchasers rsquo of nylon yarn. 22. The above observations would apply mutatis mutandis regarding the assessee rsquo s agreement with the purchasers of vanaspati and the purchasers of imported cars. 23. We have given facts only for asst. yr. 1977-78 but the facts are similar in asst. yr. 1978-79 when Rs. 9,06,238 were forfeited, in asst. yr. 1979-80 when Rs. 77,275 were forfeited and in asst. yr. 1980-81 when Rs. 6,61,306 were forfeited. 24. We would accordingly restore the matter to the file of the ITO for the aforesaid years when he will examine the matter afresh regarding the assessability of forfeited amounts in the years in question. 25. In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1986 (10) TMI 91
Scientific Research, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... learned counsel the approval accorded by the Indian Council of Medical Research should be considered as sufficient for allowing weighted deduction. This submission of the learned counsel appears to be misconstrued as the approval at page 10 meets the requirements of section 35(1)(ii) and for meeting the requirements of section 35(2A) the programme is required to be approved for which the donation was made. On behalf of the assessee no evidence is brought on record indicating that the programme has as well been approved. This factual position is not seen to be in dispute with reference to evidence. The lower authorities denied the assessee s claim for weighted deduction on this basis. In view of the clear factual position it is indeed difficult to infer any mistake in the actions of the lower authorities and the same is, therefore, confirmed. 8. No other ground was either raised or pressed before us. The paper book has been considered. 9. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
