|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 301 Records
-
2002 (6) TMI 221 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, C
Confiscation - Settlement of case ... ... ... ... ..... The interest liability is fixed at Rs. 51,63,709.86. The main applicant has already paid this amount during investigation. (iii) Immunity from penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act is granted to the main applicant and the co-applicants. (iv) The immunity from prosecution under the provisions of the Customs Act is also granted to the main applicant and the co-applicants. (v) The seized parts/spare parts are ordered to be released and immunity from payment of fine is also granted. 16. emsp The above immunities are granted by virtue of powers vested with the Settlement Commission under sub-section (1) of Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962. In case, if at any time it comes to the notice of the Settlement Commission, that the immunities have been obtained by any fraudulent means, then these immunities are liable to be withdrawn. The attention of the main applicant and co-applicants is also drawn to the sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2002 (6) TMI 220 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Value of clearances - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... n the same year. They held that benefit was not given to manufacturer but to the goods manufactured, namely cement. We would on the same lines, grant the benefit of 99,000 MTs of cement cleared with the appellants own brand name viz., Suvarna and deny the same to the cement of brand of M/s. ACC. We find that the total clearances during the financial year were 1,06,541.400 MTs of cement, out of which the appellants have submitted that the quantity included 27,362 MTs of cement with M/s. ACC rsquo s brand, which were cleared at the rate of Rs. 350/- PMT. The remaining quantity comes to 79,179 MTs which is well within the limits of 99,000 MTs and would be eligible for the rate under Notification 12/95. There is no contravention of the clearances under the Notification. The demands of duty cannot therefore be upheld. 3 emsp In view of our finding, we find no reasons to uphold the orders of the lower authorities and we would allow the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 219 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... Advocate submitted that due to the slitting, the classification would change from Heading 7225 to 7226 and the rate of duty under 7226 and the rate of duty at which they have discharged the duty is the same and no further demands of duty/credit reversal could therefore be made under Rule 57F(4) induces us to conclude, that the demands as made cannot be upheld. (c) emsp Since we cannot find any reason or cause to sustain the demands under Rule 57F(1)(ii), as proposed in the notices and made by the ld. Commissioners, nor can we find any short payment of duty/reversal of credit under Rule 57F(4), we cannot therefore come to any finding of imposition of any penalty under the provisions of the Central Excise Act or rules made thereunder. The penalties as imposed are required to be set aside. When there is no demand there could be no order on interests. 3. emsp In view of our findings, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals allowed with consequential benefit as per law.
-
2002 (6) TMI 218 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Scrap and waste ... ... ... ... ..... t into pieces it amounts to manufacture as it was rightly held by the Commissioner and accordingly they are liable to duty. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It was submitted by the Counsel that the items were not cut into pieces after removal as urged by the other side but they were cut for removal of damaged parts of the plant. On going through the facts, we find that the cutting was necessary to remove the goods from the damaged structure. It is not even the case of the Department that the parts were cut into pieces with certain measurement after removal from the plant. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the ratio of the decisions referred to by the Counsel are clearly applicable to the facts of this case. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, we accept the contention of the party on the issue of excisability and accordingly the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (6) TMI 216 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Remand - Linear Alpha Olefin C-14 ... ... ... ... ..... a single chemical compound and said 97 is not a mixture of two or more isomers of Alpha Olefin C-14. rdquo It is to be noted that in coming to his conclusion, the Commissioner has, rightly not relied upon the technical opinion of the Dy. Chief Chemist. He has only found that the test report of the IIT incomplete. That as we have clearly noted is incorrect. In our view, there was sufficient material before the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide them and the law required him to do so. 8. emsp Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside. The Commissioner shall dispose of the appeal before him in one of the manner specified in sub-section (3) of Section 128A in accordance with law. Taking note of the directions that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given to the Asstt. Commissioner to decide the matter within one month from the receipt of the order, we expect that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall apply the same period to himself from the receipt of this order.
-
2002 (6) TMI 215 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... vehicle they must be considered to be parts. We are prima facie unable to accept this contention. The heading proposed by the department appears to us to be more appropriate. The goods are in any case prima facie excluded from classification in Chapter 87 by Note 2(f) to Section XVI in which Chapter 87 falls. This note excludes consideration of electric machinery and equipment as parts or parts and accessories of goods falling in Chapter 87 even if identifiable as for the goods for that section. 4. emsp The decisions cited by the applicant does not seem to have any relevance to the issue before us. The claim of financial hardship is not supported by any evidence. We do not see how the copies of the income tax returns that have been furnished establish this claim. We, therefore, direct deposit by the applicant of Rs. 80,000/- within a month from the receipt of this order, upon which we waive deposit of the remaining duty and stay its recovery. 5. emsp Compliance on 29-7-2002.
-
2002 (6) TMI 214 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Appeal - Demand consequent upon rejection of claim for non-dutiability - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... tiability has been arrived at, then benefit of exemption notification if any, is to be given and Rule 56A procedure (proforma gate procedure) benefit is to be passed on. The assessees in this case are squarely entitled to the benefits of lsquo proforma credit rsquo in view of this law as laid down by the Supreme Court. We find no reasons to uphold the views advanced by the learned Commissioner to deny the benefit of this position in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court. We therefore hold that proforma credit would be eligible subject to production of the documentary evidence to substantiate the claims. (d) Once we find that the demand is to be limited to a period of 6 months and proforma credit would be eligible and the appellants bona fide belief led to the entire episode of non discharge of duty, we would not find the facts in the case to be fit enough to call for the penal clauses of Rule 173Q. 6. emsp In view of our findings the appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 213 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacturer - Hired labourer ... ... ... ... ..... not a hired labour or covered by the labour contract only. The fact is that M/s. Syed Hussain fabricated the ducts. The above findings also bring out that the contract between the two is not a contract of labour alone but a contract between two parties at arm rsquo s length and as on principal to principal basis. We also note that M/s. Syed Hussain were not using the manufacturing equipment of M/s. Voltas Ltd. but were using the manufactured items of M/s Voltas Ltd. as also some of their own items for which they were being paid for the items supplied by them and there was a penalty clause if the work was not completed within time. Having regard to the above, we hold that M/s. Voltas Ltd. is not the manufacturer, but the manufacturer is M/s. Syed Hussain. 19. emsp Since on merits itself the issue is decided in favour of M/s. Voltas Ltd., we do not consider it necessary to examine the limitation aspect. 20. emsp The appeal filed by M/s. Voltas Ltd is allowed in the above terms.
-
2002 (6) TMI 212 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... or the appellant as well as the learned Departmental Representative. The first consignment was cleared on 26-4-97. It was returned by the customers on 26-5-97. After further processing it was again cleared on 29-5-97 and the appellant paid duty at the rate of 18 . There is no case for the Revenue that the appellant had not followed the procedure under Rule 173L. We do not find any merit in the stand taken by the Revenue that since the appellant rsquo s case will not come under any of the exclusion clauses provided in Para 3 of the notification, the value of goods cleared on 26-4-97 and returned by the customer should also be taken into consideration. There is no provision of law which would enable the Revenue to take into consideration the value of clearances of the same goods twice over. We are therefore of the view that the impugned order, confirming the demand, has been issued without any authority of law. 3. emsp In the result, we set aside the order and allow the appeal.
-
2002 (6) TMI 184 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... actual as well as legal aspect favour strongly to the cause of the assessee-company, the appeal has to be allowed in favour of the assessee. In the result, the appeal is allowed. ITA No. 2161/H/96 (Asst. yr. 1993-94) In this appeal, the Revenue has taken the following grounds 1. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous in law and on facts 2. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the interest under s. 234B amounting to Rs. 2,50,72,632 since charging of interest under s. 234B is mandatory of Law and it is not appealable. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. The main contention relates to the deletion of interest under s. 234B amounting to Rs. 2,50,72,632. As the matter has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in ITA No. 2190/H/96, it is needless to discuss the issue again. In order to avoid repetition, we do not think to elaborately discuss the issue again. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 183 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... with the contention of the Revenue authorities that only because the amount has been included by the assessee in sales for Sales Tax purposes the same should be added to the sales for Income-tax purposes, whenever a sale is made, it has got to be accounted for Sales Tax purposes, whereas under the Income-tax the scheme is different. Under Income-tax the income has to accrue or arise under section 5 of the Act. An amount may be good for Sales Tax assessment but the same may not be considered as income for Income-tax purposes unless the right to receive the amount accrued to the assessee. We have already held above that the income under dispute did not accrue to the assessee during the year under consideration. Under the circumstances even under the mercantile system of accounting the same cannot be included as income as done by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the addition is directed to be deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly.
-
2002 (6) TMI 180 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e AO and the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). 15. In the recasted stock position filed in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee has duly shown this quantity of paddy sold to M/s Chalsani Rice Mill which has not been recorded in B-1 register. After considering these sales, the excess quantity of paddy not recorded in the books was offered as income by the assessee. In view of this, we find no reason as to why a separate addition under s. 69 should be made towards the value of this quantity of paddy. Since in the recast stock position, the excess stock has been explained by the assessee and accepted by the CIT(A) and also confirmed by us in this order, we find no reason to sustain the addition made by the AO on this account. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO. The ground of appeal No. 4 of the Revenue is also dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 177 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Deduction Of Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... n the totality of the circumstances, including the substance and the form of agreement, as well as the mode of payment, it is held tl1at the work done by the company (GEC India Ltd.) was not on the basis of turnkey project, rather the work was for supply of goods. Hence, we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which are reversed by us. Consequently, Issue No.3 is also decided against the revenue by holding that the agreements entered into by the assessee and the suppliers were not for doing the work on turnkey project basis. 60. In view of our findings on the issues listed above, all the grounds taken by the assessee in three appeals stand allowed. Since this order shall be applicable to all the three appeals, the demand of tax and interest of Rs. 8,18,274 in assessment year 1993-94, Rs. 2,67,865 in assessment year 1994-95 and Rs. 98,251 in assessment year 1995-96 stand deleted. 61. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 176 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ated as belonging to her for Wealth-tax purposes also. 36. The department has also challenged the order of Ld. CWT(A) on the ground that he admitted fresh facts in violation of rule 46A of I.T. Rules. An examination of order of Ld. CWT(A) shows that he has considered the matter in detail in assessment year 1986-87 which is the main order, which has been followed in the subsequent assessment years. On perusal of the order of Ld. CWT(A), it is not found that new or fresh evidence was admitted by him and in case any document was considered by the Ld. CWT(A) without confronting the WTO, the objection should have been taken at that level itself. Otherwise also, during arguments before us, the Ld. Sr. DR could not effectively substantiate this ground. Hence this objection of the department also fails. 37. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the Ld. CWT(A) and reject the ground taken by department. 38 to 70. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2002 (6) TMI 175 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... er interest funds available with the assessee. Since the assessee has placed the photocopies of the account books before us, to justify the claim that the interest free advances were made out of the interest free funds available with it, we have to allow the claim of the assessee subject to the condition that the facts and figures placed before us, are verified by the Assessing Officer. In case, it is found that at the time of making interest free advances, the assessee had more interest free funds available with it than the interest free advances made by it and it is also found that no part of borrowed capital were diverted towards interest free advances, then the claim of assessee for deduction of interest is to be allowed. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee is to be considered subject to verification and in the light of the propositions. This ground is, therefore, decided accordingly. 41 to 58. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2002 (6) TMI 174 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Chargeable Profits ... ... ... ... ..... eable profit under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the interest on such income tax levied or leviable under sections 215 and 217 of Income-tax Act, 1961, which forms part of the process of assessment of tax should also be allowed as deduction. 14. We are adopting the above interpretation in view of the settled rules of construction of fiscal statute, which provide that the construction, which favours the assessee or the liberal construction should be adopted. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) has followed the literal construction, which, in our view, will amount to be a rigid approach. 15. In view of the above, we reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and hold that the claim of the assessee for allowing deduction on account of interest under sections 215 and 217 deserves to be allowed. We, therefore, direct the ITO to allow the claim of the assessee in this regard. The ground is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
2002 (6) TMI 169 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... iness in that case was genuine, and it was not a device to avoid tax. What is a sham transaction has to be decided in the light of the facts of the case and where a question of fact is involved, decided cases are of only limited assistance. We are of the view that the facts of the present case have to be seen in their own light and they lead to the clear conclusion that the so-called purchase and loaning of cylinders after filling them with 1/2 kg. of gas are sham transactions in both the years, and so, the assessee is not entitled for depreciation for both the years. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd, cited by the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee is free to arrange his tax affairs, but such an arrangement cannot be a sham. 46. In the light of the above discussion, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) and reject the contentions of the assessee in these appeals. 47. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 168 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Depreciation, Allowance of ... ... ... ... ..... case of Inductotherm (India) Ltd and the judgment of the Patna Bench of the ITAT in the case of Parikh Engg. and Body Bldg. Co. Ltd. Therefore, in view of the decisions and interpretation of the concept of block of assets depreciation on ponds which is forming part of the block of assets has to be allowed as deduction even though these ponds were discarded and not used and not owned by it during the assessment years in question, as the assessee was not entitled to any scrap value whatsoever, consequent to discarding. 17. Coming to the case law relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative and by the ld. CIT(A), all of them are distinguishable, as all these cases dealt with grant of depreciation for assessment years before the introduction of the concept of depreciation on block assets. Thus, we uphold the claim of the assessee for depreciation for both the assessment years and set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A). 18. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 167 - ITAT DELHI-F
... ...
... ... ..... opinion that the payment in the facts and circumstances of the case would not come within the exclusionary provisions. 28. Before parting, we would like to reiterate that the genuineness of the expenditure is not the deciding criteria or the issue to be determined in the present appeal. The issue on the present appeal to be decided is whether payment made to the concerned party, i.e., M/s John Brown can be said to be deemed income under s. 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Act and after fully examining the requirements of the Act along with the Explanation attached to it and the terms and agreements of the nature of services to be rendered by M/s John Brown, we have no hesitation in saying that s. 9(1)(vii)(b) is attracted. Accordingly, the tax authorities were fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the case to apply the provisions of the said section. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are rejected. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2002 (6) TMI 166 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... of the deduction which he is otherwise entitled to claim. Where the amount was paid in cash or received in cash, the AO has to find out whether the transaction is genuine or not and of he finds that the transaction is genuine, he should allow the deduction. The circular of the CBDT (No. 220, dt. 31st May, 1977) is illustrative and not exhaustive and the AO has to take into account the surrounding circumstances, consideration of business expediency and the facts of each particular case in exercising his discretion either in favour or against the assessee. In this case the disallowance of payment in terms of s. 10A(3) was not justified. Since the assessee has filed a copy of letter of M/s Hari Ram Oil Co. to M/s Devi Chand and Co. stating that they do not accept cheque the case was covered under r. 6DD and hence the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified and on the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
............
|
