|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 264 Records
-
1994 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... et the accounts audited within the time frame of s. 271B, makes it penal. In this case audit report was ready on 24th Aug., 1991 with the CAs who were in Sholapur. On account of communal riot and other problems the assessee might not have been able to go to Sholapur and obtain the same, but then this is a reasonable cause. The decisions cited above are entirely applicable to the case. Following the same and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that for a reasonable cause the assessee could not fulfil the statutory condition. As provided in s. 273B, a reasonable cause is a valid defence. In our view, this is not a case where penalty could be imposed having regard to the cause shown. The authorities below have failed to consider the actual aspects which must have come in the way of the assessee in producing the audit report with the return of income within the time frame. In the circumstances, we cancel the order levying penalty under s. 271B. Appeal is allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 83 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Firm Registration, Illegal Business, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... id firm is one which does not exist in the contemplation of law. When the entity itself does not exist the question of making an assessment on such firm is illusory. If the conclusion of the authorities below that the partnership was illegal is carried to its logical end, then there should have been no assessment against this firm even in the status of URF. The Assessing Officer, perhaps, in that situation, was required to make a protective assessment and proceeded to make a substantive assessment against the partners in the status of AOP. No return in that status had been filed, much less a notice had been issued for filing of the return by the AOP. When once a case is not made out under section 186(1) inasmuch as there is no finding that there was no genuine firm, registration cannot be refused. Reversing the orders of the authorities below, we direct that the assessment be made against the assessee in the status of registered firm. 21. The appeal by the assessee is allowed
-
1994 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... e investment allowance. The Tribunal confirmed the view of CIT(A) on the basis of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT and that of CIT vs. S. Balasubramaniam (1982) 138 ITR 815 (Mad) and other cases. The facts are similar in the case in hand and we are also of the opinion that the view of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad A Bench in the case of ITO vs. Pratik Prints in which one of us (Shri B.M. Kothari, A.M.) was the author of that order, is fully applicable here and we conclude that the learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeals of the assessee. 9. So far as asst. yr. 1982-83 is concerned, the ITO has rejected the claim of investment allowance and this aspect has also rightly been discussed by the CIT(A) in para 14 of his order. There is no need to interfere in the order on the basis of law referred to above. 10. On the basis of above discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeals of Revenue have no force and the same are dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Import - Advance Licence ... ... ... ... ..... sultations when a subject concerns more than one department and also previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance in certain cases and particularly when the order involves any abandonment of revenue. 12.We further find that the adjudicating authorities have not been made parties to the writ petition. It would have been more appropriate if the Assistant Collector of Customs had been made a party whose action is sought to be challenged. 13.After examining all these provisions we are of the view that the stand taken by the respondents is correct. It is for the Customs Authorities to examine if the goods had been imported in terms of the licence, and what duty of Customs, if any, is leviable thereon. If aggrieved, the petitioner has remedy under the Act by way of appeal. In this view of the matter also we do not wish to go into the merit of the controversy as any observation made by us may prej- udice the case of either of the parties. We will, therefore, dismiss the petition.
-
1994 (10) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
Writ Jurisdiction - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... itled to refund of the excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 0.57 Crore. May be the CEGAT has not specifically referred to this chart, but the documents on the basis of which the chart was prepared had been duly considered by the CEGAT. We do not find any ground in the present case for us to interfere. We would, therefore, dismiss the petition. 5.In one of the cases recently decided by us we had criticised the conduct of the petitioner in that case in coming to the Court almost a day or so before the time granted by the CEGAT was to expire. In the present case also there appears to be no reason why the petitioner could not have filed the petition earlier immediately after the impugned order was made, and why it should come to us when only three days were left for the period to expire. However, since the time has already expired and we are pronouncing our order today, we will give four days time more to the petitioner for it to comply with the order of the CEGAT. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Recovery of Government ... ... ... ... ..... Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the stay/waiver application has yet not been decided. During this period since the respondent-authorities are pressing for recovery and the petitioner having no other alternative remedy, has filed this writ petition. 5.Looking to the aforesaid facts, we direct respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to dispose of the stay/waiver application preferably within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. Petitioner will file copy of this order within two weeks. 6.Until disposal of the stay application, the recovery proceedings as against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 22-9-1994 shall remain stayed and further recovery shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the aforesaid authorities. 7.With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 8.Certified copy of this order be issued to the Counsel for petitioner on payment of usual charges today.
-
1994 (10) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Warehousing charges - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... ssion of the proper authority, cause to be sold (any transfer of the goods notwithstanding) such sufficient portion of the goods, as the warehouse keeper may select, where, however, the warehousing is the one under Section 49, there would no liability under Section 63 of the Act. 41.The questions aforestated are mixed questions of law and fact and since on the basis of the material on record this court is not in a position to decide the basic facts necessary for applicability of Sections 49 and 63 of the Act, it would be but proper to remit the matter back to the appropriate authority for deciding the aforesaid questions. It goes without saying that the rights and liabilities of the parties viz. the petitioner on the one hand and the Central Warehousing Corporation, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad on the other, would depend on the decision of the aforesaid questions by the appropriate customs authority. In view of the above discussion, I concur with the order passed by brother Tripathi.
-
1994 (10) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Fees (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... gment dated January 16, 1986 delivered by Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No. 17 of 1986, the petitioners were directed to deposit the difference between the fees prescribed in the table and those demanded by the Respondent No. 3 with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. In accordance with the direction, diverse amounts have been deposited from time to time and the Prothonotary and Senior Master had invested those amounts with nationalised banks. Shri Vahanwati submitted that as the petitioners have succeeded in the challenge to recovery of excess fees, directions may be given that the amounts deposited by the petitioners should be refunded by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The prayer is just and is required to be granted. Accordingly, the Prothonotary and Senior Master is directed to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioners forthwith alongwith the interest accrued if any. Shri Thakkar applies for stay of operation of the order. Prayer refused.
-
1994 (10) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Drawback - Statute ... ... ... ... ..... he drawback amount paid in pursuance of public notice dated October 15, 1971 should not be withdrawn. The validity of the show cause notices is under challenge in this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, submitted that it is not open for the Central Government to withdraw the drawback benefits with retrospective effect. It was contended that the authority was exercising subordinate legislation and it is not permissible for such authority to provide that benefits stand withdrawn with retrospective effect. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. It is not open for the authority issuing public notice to withdraw the benefit with retrospective effect and consequently the issuance of the show cause notices was without jurisdiction. 4. Accordingly, Petition succeeds and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rate of Duty (Central Excise) ... ... ... ... ..... e of cigarettes. The petitioners claimed that the Notification was published in the Official Gazette of India and was available to the public at large only on September 3, 1985 and consequently the clearance of various quantities of cigarettes on September 2, 1985 should be on payment of rates of excise duty payable prior to September 3, 1985. The claim of the petitioners is devoid of any merit. The Notification dated September 2, 1985 was published in the Official Gazette on September 2, 1985 itself. Shri Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, conceded to that fact but urged that as long as Notification was not available to the public, the Notification cannot be operated. The submission is devoid of any merit. The effect of the Notification comes into force as soon as the Notification is published in the Official Gazette and consequently the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged with costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal under the proviso to Sec. 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act cannot be interfered with inasmuch as the Tribunal in exercise of its discretionary power is competent to pass such an order, unless it has acted perversely in ordering pre-deposit. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid Original Petition. But, what is urged here is that in view of the existence of a prima facie case, the petitioner should not have been called upon to deposit a huge amount as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeal. I find that the contention of the petitioner is well founded and it is fortified by the aforesaid two decisions. 5.In view of the above finding, I direct the third respondent to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner to dispense with the pre-deposit, in the light of the observations made above, in case the patitioner makes a petition to do so on or before 31st of October, 1994. 6.The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
1994 (10) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modification of Tribunal's order ... ... ... ... ..... etc. and the ultimate product. It is for the Tribunal to examine whether the amount which has been admittedly charged by the petitioner from its customer towards the cost of preparation of the gravure printing cylinder would be includible in the excisable value of the goods. The Tribunal has observed that the revenue seems to have a prima facie case on the point and it has refrained itself from discussing the matter in detail at the stage of the disposal of the application under the proviso to Section 35F. This is not a thing which could patently be held to be not includable in the excisable value of the goods and hence this court also cannot examine the matter in greater details. 8. For the above reasons, the Tribunal s order under challenge suffers from no illegality or irregularity which may justify interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
-
1994 (10) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Rate of duty, rate of exchange and tariff value (Customs) - Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Writ jurisdiction
-
1994 (10) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Adjudication - Detention of goods - Demurrage and warehouse/godown rent and charges ... ... ... ... ..... (a) The petitioners will pay demurrage, container charges and ground rent to the fourth respondent from the date of the storage of the goods till January 15, 1991 (b) The first three respondents will pay the demurrage, container charges and ground rent to the fourth respondent on account of storage of goods of the petitioner from January 16, 1991 till the date of release of the goods. (2) Mr. Shalinder Sharma, Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence will appear before this court on November 1, 1994 and explain the reasons for incorrectly stating that the petitioner had not filed test reports before exporting the goods when from the show cause notice dated February 18, 1991 it is clear that the petitioner had submitted two test reports dated February 5, 1990 and March 16, 1990. 51. The writ petition succeeds to the extent indicated above and is disposed of as such. Respondents 2 and 3 will pay costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- of this petition to the Petitioner.
-
1994 (10) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Manufacture - Packing - Modvat credit - Input ... ... ... ... ..... ion No. 12924 of 1994 has stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that he has filed a reference application before the third respondent, which is pending consideration and decision. Relying on the decision of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the said reference application and that relief can be given to the petitioner. 16.In the result, for the reasons stated, I pass the following order Writ Petition Nos. 11090 and 12924 of 1994 are allowed. The orders impugned in Writ Petition Nos. 11090 and 12924 of 1994 are quashed Respondents 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 11089 of 1994 are directed to permit the petitioners to utilise the credit of duty paid on the paper bags, received by the petitioners and used in the manufacture and marketing of packaged cement Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12924 of 1994 is directed to withdraw the reference application made before the third respondent, dated 30-3-1993 No costs
-
1994 (10) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Exemption - Countervailing duty ... ... ... ... ..... decision turned upon the words contained in the said Notification. Hence, we find it difficult to hold that the said decision against the appellant in any manner. 10. In Government of India v. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., Coimbatore 1981 (8) E.L.T. 892 , a Division Bench of this Court held that The regulatory duty is in the form of surcharge on the excise duty and should be treated as part of the excise duty, therefore the duty leviable and referred to in the Notification dated 24-5-1971 takes within it, the regulatory duty and the additional regulatory duty leviable. In other words exemption notification will apply not only to the basic duty payable but also to regulatory duty. It may be pointed out that the decision turned upon the wordings contained in the Notification. Therefore, it is not possible to apply the same to the present cases. 10A. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The C.M.P. is also dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ustody of the Customs Authority. On this aspect there is no dispute and there cannot be any dispute. If so, the question of making any deposit of the duty levied while filing the appeal could not arise out of Section 129E. 5.We are of the view that this provision was not noticed while making the order on 1-2-1994 for whatever reason. The statutory right of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority is denied to the petitioner by a wrong reading of the provision. Accordingly, we recall our earlier order and at the same time set aside the order of the CEGAT dated 12-3-1993 imposing the condition of pre-deposit to entertain the appeal. 6.Since the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by CEGAT for non-compliance of the order made by this court, which we have now recalled, the said Final Order No. 178/1994-C of CEGAT in Appeal No. C/111/93-C also is set aside. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to revive the appeal and hear the same on merits, according to law. No costs.
-
1994 (10) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Modification of stay order - Financial hardship - Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ssed. 3. We would however like to observe that it will not be proper for the Tribunal to dismiss the appellant s appeal mechanically merely because the appellant has failed to comply with the condition of pre-deposit imposed by it. When the appeal would be listed again for hearing, it would be open to the appellant to move the Tribunal even at that stage to raise a plea that it could not comply with the order passed by the Tribunal because of financial difficulties and circumstances beyond its control. If such a plea is raised, then the Tribunal shall have to consider it on its own merits. If the Tribunal accepts the plea, then the appeal will have to be heard on merits. But if no such plea is raised or it is not accepted by the Tribunal then it will be open to the Tribunal to pass the consequential order of dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appellant has not complied with the condition imposed upon by it. 4. With the aforesaid observations this appeal is dismissed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... and there being an alternative remedy available to the petitioner the writ petition should not be entertained. This contention in my view, is not tenable. As is evident the Collector (Appeals) has acted in a queer way. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the entertainment of a writ petition and it is one of the fittest cases in which the remedy should be expeditiously allowed to the petitioner by the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14th September, 1994 is hereby quashed. The Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad shall now proceed with the matter in accordance with law and in accordance with the order dated 5th September, 1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 824 of 1994. It is further ordered that till the disposal of the waiver application by the Collector, the recovery of demand disputed in Appeal No. 214/CE/MRT/94 shall remain stayed.
-
1994 (10) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Natural justice - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... ed 31-12-1992 of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division in its entirety and also the consequential order dated 6-1-1993 of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Thirumangalam Range by allowing W.P. Nos. 1785 and 1786 of 1993, I direct the 2nd Respondent/Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, to restore the proceedings, which are the subject matter of the notices dated 13-8-1992 and 8-12-1992, and issue a fresh notice of hearing giving sufficient time also to the petitioner to submit their objections and thereafter give a hearing if so desired by the petitioner in accordance with law and decide the matter on merits objectively and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier proceedings which have been hereby quashed. In the light of the above, W.P. Nos. 14509 of 1992 and 28 of 1993 are dismissed as calling for no separate orders in view of the orders passed in the other writ petitions and directions issued pertaining thereto. No costs.
....
|
