|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 286 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... lly allowed by them to their dealers. Government are, however, unable to accept the party’s contentions that 10% disount should be allowed on all sales on account of the fact that 10% discount was given by them on about 80% of their total sales. Only the discount that has been actually allowed could be claimed for deduction and no system of averaging could be adopted for determining the discount entitled for deduction. 4. Government accordingly dispose of the review proceedings as well as the revision application by holding that the party should be given the benefit of deduction of discount actually allowed by them in their sales. Since the quantum of discount given varies from dealer to dealer depending upon the sales to them, the exact amount of discount should be determined in each case by the Asstt. Collector after verifying the party’s records. In no case should the discount allowed exceed 10% which was the discount claimed by the party.
-
1981 (9) TMI 285 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... etanilide find wide application as intermediate for drug among other things. The National Chemical Laboratory, Pune, have certified that the above mentioned chemicals are drug -ntermediates to the extent they are used in the manufacture of drugs. Government accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal and hold that the Petitioners should get the benefit of the exemption notification for the three items to the extent that they are actually used in the manufacture of drugs. In the Government’s view, this requirement of end-use though not built into the exemption notification is not only implied but also becomes imperative in a situation where the product has uses other than as drug-intermediate whereas the exemption is limited only to drug-intermediates that is only when the product is used ased as a drug-intermediate. The actual use should be to the satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector or any officer duly authorised by him. The revision application is disposed accordingly.
-
1981 (9) TMI 284 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the aforesaid goods.” 3.2. On a plain meaning of the language of proviso (IV) of Notification 120/75 as stated above, Government observe that the notification shall have no application if the prices were influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship of the type mentioned in the proviso. Mere execution of the contract regarding sale price would not per se suggest that the sales are not at arms length. There is nothing to show that the contract made between the applicants and the purchasers were in any way influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship of the type mentioned in the prices. Government hold that the transactions between the applicants which is a Government of India undertaking and their customers were clearly at arms length and as such they are entitled to avail of the facility of assessment at the invoice prices in terms of Notification No. 120/75 dated 30-4-1975. 4. The Revision Application is accordingly allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 283 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... . 4. The petitioners have raised another contention on the quantum of demand. They have stated that in the present case demand for differential duty was raised for four varieties of coolers manufactured by them by including the value of the divertors and wheels. However, in the case of one of these varieties, namely, “Coal King Coolers" they were never sold after fitment with wheels. They have filed an affldavit to that effect. Government observe that this is a question of fact that needs to be checked up. The Asstt. Collector would therefore verify the correctness of the statement and if it is found that the ‘Cool King Cooler’ were never sold after fitment with wheels then the demand for differential duty raised by including the value of the wheels fitted to ‘Cool King Cooler’ should be modified and the petitioners given consequential relief. 5. Subject to the observation made in para 4 above the revision application is rejected.
-
1981 (9) TMI 282 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... y that it was set up much latter than 1975 and, therefore, the practice of that factory could not provide any guidance to the appellants in the matter of clearance of their goods as that factory had come into existence only 1977 whereas the demand for duty pertains to the period 1974-75. 7. The Board also observes that in the absence of any evidence about the fineness of the fertilisers cleared by the appellants during 1974-75 it was not possible to arrive at any decision that the goods were fertilisers. The Collector has observed that such a finding is not relevant. It would therefore, appear that there is no clear evidence available as to the fineness of the powder cleared by the appellants, during 1974-75. In view of all these factors, the Board finds the orders of the Collector to be legally untenable. In the facts and circumstances of the case the demand is also clearly time-barred. The Board therefore, allows the appeal and sets aside the Collector’s orders.
-
1981 (9) TMI 281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thickness of 3.151 mm. cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioners that the thickness was 3.175 mm. deserves acceptance. It is not in dispute that if the thickness is 3.175 mm. then the assessment of duty at the rate of 200% ad valorem was not justified. 11. The petitioners are entitled to the refund of the amount as claimed in the petition. The rule is made absolute and the petitioners would be entitled to relief in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition save and except their claim for interest on the amount of ₹ 13, 88,340.20. Though Shri Joshi pressed for the grant of relief of interest, I am not inclined to grant interest on the facts and circumstances of the present case as in my judgment, the authorities could not be said to have acted without any reason or basis. The respondents shall refund the amount to the petitioners within a period of three months. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 280 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ich would otherwise have been leviable but for the exemption. From the notifications set out above, it is manifest that the Government has exempted cotton fabrics produced on powerlooms owned by a co-operative society, and in the present instance owned by the members of the Co-operative Society. Hence, the exemption granted is within the terms of the notification aforesaid, which have effect as if enacted as a part of the statute” (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, if the exemption notification in the case of paper mills is read as part of the statute the rate of the levy gets reduced and the distinction between leviable and payable as put forward by the paper mills becomes meaningless. 14. The result is that we find no force in the four appeals before us or in the writ petition. The appeals are dismissed. In the writ petition, we discharge the rule and dismiss the same. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 279 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e relief sought in the petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the orders of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports dated December 21, 1973, and that by the Under Secretary to the Government of India communicated to the petitioner by letter dated December 22, 1977 are quashed. Though the petitioner has succeeded in the petition, I am directing the petitioner to pay the costs of the respondents, because the letter dated February 15, 1975, on which reliance was placed, was not annexed to the petition, nor was made available to the respondents till the arguments commenced. The matter was required to be adjourned to enable Shri Mehta to take instructions from his clients. As the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant letter at the time of filing of the petition or any time before the date of hearing, it is necessary that the petitioner should be saddled with costs. The petitioner shall pay the costs of this petition to respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
-
1981 (9) TMI 278 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... ia Linn (Olive Oil)”. No restriction about the size of the packing has been imposed in the list or in Appendix 10, as has been done in the case of dates where imports were permitted to be allowed in traditional small packings which would not, however, apply to dry fruits, spices, etc. 8. Further, in item No. 27 of the same Appendix 10, import of “Sugar or Milk” was permitted in bulk only. These would show that the framers of the I.T.C. Policy (for whatever reasons) showed not to specify the size of the packing in the case of Olive Oil. 9. As the Policy reads, it has to be held that Olive Oil has permitted to be imported under O.G.L., under Sl.. No. 28 of Appendix 10, read with item No. 58 of List 4 of that Appendix, without restriction to the size of the packing as crude drugs of the Ayurvedic/Unani variety. 10. In the circumstances, the Board allows the appeal and remits in full the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation on the goods imported.
-
1981 (9) TMI 277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld be levied only under Item No. 72 and it would not be appropriate to stretch the meaning so as to attract the duty under Item No. 73 under the heading “electrical apparatus”. In my judgment, on the material produced on record, the authorities were clearly in error in holding that the goods imported by the petitioners were liable to duty under Item No. 73 of the Tariff. The submission of Shri Talyarkhan that the authorities were more impressed by the Departmental Tariff Advice than the true interpretation of the entries is not without any substance. In my judgment, the claim made by the petitioners is correct and the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought in the petition. 23. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. The respondents are directed to refund the excess duty of ₹ 11,73,112.87 within six weeks from today. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petitioners.
-
1981 (9) TMI 276 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they are disposal goods. Shri Hidayatullah is right in his submission that the three authorities did not even challenge the fact that every item imported was new and unused. The authorities below proceeded on a wrong assumption that as the petitioners have purchased the goods in lot and goods are not of uniform type and size, they are to be treated as disposal goods. The assumption is unwarranted and contrary to the plain reading of sub-clause (3) (iii) of Clause 5 of the Import (Control) Order. The order under challenge in these circumstances cannot be sustained and the order of confiscation requires to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) (iii) of the petition as the petitioners have already paid the amount of fine to remove the goods. The respondents shall refund the amount of fine within a period of two weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 275 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a medicinal preparation is a bona fide medicinal preparation or not and as to the total requirement of the medicinal preparations containing alcohol or intoxicating drug or in which alcohol is self-generated during the process of their manufacture for the whole of the State during one year?
Whether there is demand for the petitioner's medicinal preparations not only in the State, but throughout the country and to limit the quantity to be manufactured, taking into account the requirements of the State alone, is but an abridgment on the freedom of inter-State trade and commerce
Held that:- The restrictions imposed by s. 12B as to the alcoholic content of medicinal and toilet preparations and the requirement that they shall not be manufactured except and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by him, are nothing but reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Art. 19(6). The impugned provisions, therefore, cannot be struck down as offending Art. (1) (g) of the Constitution.
It is to be observed that restriction imposed by s. 12A of the Act as to the quantity of medicinal preparations to be manufactured relates not only to such preparations to which alcohol is added, but also to medicinal preparations in which alcohol is self-generated. There can be no doubt that ayurvedic asavas and aristhas which are capable of being misused as alcoholic beverages can come within the purview of the definition of 'liquor' contained in s. 3(10) of the Act being of the Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1969 liquids containing alcohol The contention that Note to r. 3(1) is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution has no substance. It provides that unless otherwise declared by the Expert Committee, asavas and aristas and other preparations containing alcohal are deemed to be spurious if their self-generated alcohol content exceeds 12% by volume. It is a matter of common knowledge that such preparations are always likely to be misused as a substitute for alcoholic beverages and, therefore, the restriction imposed by s. 12A is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of s 19(6) of the Constitution,
S 12A has no such effect. As already stated, the expression 'shall have regard to' means 'shall take into consideration'. All that the provision enjoins is that the Commissioner shall have regard to the total requirements for consumption and use in the State, while fixing the quantity of the medicinal preparations to be manufactured. Furthermore, the challenge with regard to Art. 301 does not arise as, admittedly, the Bill was reserved for the assent of the President, and is, therefore, protected by Art. 304(b) of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the provisions are regulatory in nature and they impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 274 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the expression 'Court' would comprehend appellate court in which the award can be filed?
Held that:- This Court is the Court having exclusive jurisdiction wherein the award dated November 11, 1977, should be filed and we further direct the 1st respondent to approach the Registrar of the Delhi Court to collect the award alongwith the record of proceedings of the 3rd respondent in the reference made by this Court and the same be filed in this Court. We direct that on the receipt of the Award and the proceedings a notice of the filing of the award should be issued to the appellant and the 1st respondent and the further proceedings should be held. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (9) TMI 273 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by Mr. Chakraborty on this point. In the view that I have taken, I refrain from dealing with these authorities. In the result this application succeeds, and the rule is made absolute. There will be a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing these assessment orders dated 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 26th April, 1975, which are annexure A to the petition and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect thereto in any manner whatsoever. There will also be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the monies collected from the petitioner as entry tax in respect of the items brought by the petitioner into the taxable territory. There will be a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents, their servant and agents from making the petitioner liable to tax under the Act in respect of the items brought by him into the taxable territory under the generic head spices . There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ost, be taxed under the general head because if these leather hoods are not spare parts, they cannot also be accessories of jeeps or motor vehicles. As far as this point is concerned, the assessee is in a technical difficulty. The assessee was prepared to accept the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner levying tax at 13 per cent on the basis that the leather hood was an automobile spare part. The assessee cannot have now the benefit out of the revisional power exercised by the Board. The assessee cannot be in a better position than it was when the suo motu revision was undertaken by the Board. Further, it is found that even before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner the assessee appears to have raised the point but did not pursue it by further appeal to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the assessee cannot be allowed to raise the point at this stage. In the result, the order of the Board is confirmed. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 271 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... concerned, it must be distinguished on that ground alone. The reliance on the dictionary meaning cannot be held against the dealer in this case. In the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the relevant entry is entry 123, viz., glassware, bottles. Bangles are certainly not bottles and the word glassware as ordinarily understood, apart from the pure dictionary meaning, is something which is to do with tableware like glasses, glass dishes, etc. If glass sheets cannot come within the definition of glassware much less can bangles said to come within the definition. Under these circumstances, we allow each of these writ petitions, and quash and set aside the orders passed by the sales tax authorities. If the glass bangles are not glassware, they will be assessable as general goods falling within the category of section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The respondents will pay costs to the petitioners in these petitions.
-
1981 (9) TMI 270 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . If the transaction carries the impress of being in the course of inter-State trade and commerce then it does not cease to be so merely by the act of the assessee of filing these forms. It was never disputed by the department that these were commission agent s purchases. Once this is not disputed then the admission of the assessee by furnishing of these forms is not detrimental in any manner from the real nature of the form that it was in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The question of law is decided by saying that purchases of foodgrain, oil-seeds and mahua flower in the assessment year 1974-75 on commission agency were in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, and therefore, no tax could be levied under section 3-D or under section 3-AAAA of the Act. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Tribunal to take action under section 11(8) of the Act. The assessee shall be entitled to Rs. 300 as costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 269 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... become liable to pay tax under this Act shall continue to be so liable until the expiry of three consecutive years during each of which his gross turnover has failed to exceed......and such further period after the date of the said expiry as may be prescribed and his liability to pay tax under this Act shall cease on the expiry of the prescribed period Provided.................... Relying on this provision this Court held in the reported decision that the liability subsisted for the period indicated in the statute notwithstanding the fact that the turnover was less than Rs. 25,000 during the period following the amendment by Orissa Act 15 of 1968. We are of the view that the reasoning given in the reported decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The liability of the assessee must, therefore, subsist for the period in issue notwithstanding the fact that the turnover did not exceed the prescribed minimum limit of Rs. 25,000. No costs. DAS, J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 268 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... claim should have been made within six month from the date of sale. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowed. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal following a decision of this Court in Madras Radiators and Pressings v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 STC 123, considered that the claim should have been allowed. The State challenges this order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The decision in Madras Radiators and Pressing v. State of Tamil Nadu 1976 37 STC 123 (referred to above) has been overruled by a Full Bench decision and the Full Bench decision is reported in Traders and Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu 1977 40 STC 289 (FB). Applying the said decision, we hold that the assessee was not eligible for the claim for deduction on the ground of sales returns, because the claim had not been filed within six months as contemplated by the statute. The revision is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 267 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t in the objection that the activity of providing amenities and services in a hotel which is the subject of tax under the Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980, could not, by artificial device, be described as sale and subjected to tax under the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. But, in view of the fact that by SRO No. 490 of 1980 dated 17th September, 1980, the Government has directed that the amenities and services in a hotel which are liable to tax under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Hotel (Amenities and Services) Tariff Taxation Act, 1980, shall be exempt from the levy of tax under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, this argument has lost its validity and can no longer prevail. In the result, I agree with my learned brother Kotwal, J., that the writ petitions should be dismissed with costs. I order accordingly. The interim orders of stay shall stand vacated. Petitions dismissed.
........
|
