|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 435 Records
-
1997 (11) TMI 116
Issues:
1. Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 191A for export of "Cotton Quilt Covers."
2. Interpretation of the term "Quilt" and "Quilt Covers."
3. Application of past practices and judicial decisions to support the rebate claims.
4. Classification of goods under Chapter 94 for assessment and exemption.
5. Relevance and impact of trade notices on excise duty claims.
6. Differentiation between Rule 191A and Rule 191B procedures for rebate claims.
7. Distinction between "Quilts" and "Quilt Covers" for eligibility of rebate claims.
Analysis:
The revision application was filed against the rejection of rebate claims for the export of "Cotton Quilt Covers" under Rule 191A. The contention was that only Cotton Quilts (Rajais) were eligible for rebate, not Quilt Covers. The applicants argued that their consistent past practice of exporting Quilt Covers entitled them to the rebate, citing dictionary meanings and judicial decisions. However, the Government observed that Quilt Covers exported did not meet the definition of Quilts as they lacked padding materials, distinguishing them from Quilts. The denial of rebate claims was upheld, emphasizing the need for correction of past wrong practices without prior notice.
Regarding the classification of goods under Chapter 94, the Government clarified that it did not impact the eligibility for rebate under Rule 191A, which is independent of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Trade notices were deemed non-binding on quasi-judicial authorities, and the differentiation between Quilts and Quilt Covers under Rule 191A and 191B was highlighted. The Government rejected the argument that general terms cover all forms and varieties, emphasizing the specific requirements for Quilts to include padding materials.
The Government distinguished Rule 191A and Rule 191B from Rule 12 and Rule 13, noting the different procedures for claiming rebates on exported goods. The final analysis concluded that the distinction between Quilts and Quilt Covers warranted separate procedures under different rules. Since the applicants' product did not align with the notified Rajais under Rule 191A, the denial of rebate claims was justified. The revision application was rejected based on these findings.
-
1997 (11) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
Classification of Karbate Tubes of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin under sub-heading 6815.10 or 8419.50.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute:
The primary issue is whether the Karbate Tubes of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin, used as part of heat exchangers, should be classified under sub-heading 6815.10 as per the department or under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the importer.
2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellants argued that the imported goods should fall under Chapter Heading 84.19, as they are parts of heat exchangers and are made of artificial graphite, not covered by Chapter Heading 68.15. They cited several judgments to support their claim, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ballarpur Industries Limited [1995 (75) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)], and other Tribunal decisions like Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries [1994 (71) E.L.T. 1047], Shriram Vinyl and Chemical Industries [1989 (43) E.L.T 87], and Graphite Vicarb India Limited [1997 (93) E.L.T. 710].
3. Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter Heading 68.15, specifically under sub-heading 6815.10, which includes non-electrical articles of graphite or other carbon. They relied on the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes, which include non-electrical articles of artificial graphite under Chapter Heading 68.15. They also referred to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Saurashtra Chemicals, Porbandar [1986 (23) E.L.T. 283], which was confirmed by the Apex Court [1997 (95) E.L.T. 455 (S.C.)].
4. Examination of HSN Explanatory Notes:
The Tribunal noted that the Customs Tariff is fully aligned with the HSN and its Explanatory Notes, which provide that non-electrical articles of artificial graphite are covered under Chapter Heading 68.15. The Tribunal also referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Bakelite Hylam Limited [1997 (91) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] and Wood Craft Products Ltd. [1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)], which emphasized the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes in resolving tariff classification disputes.
5. Analysis of Previous Decisions:
The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions, noting that earlier decisions under the 1975 Customs Tariff Act, prior to its alignment with HSN, may not be applicable. The Tribunal distinguished between the earlier tariff aligned with CCCN and the current tariff aligned with HSN, emphasizing that the latter should guide the classification.
6. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the imported Karbate Tubes of artificial graphite impregnated with phenolic resin should be classified under Chapter Heading 68.15, specifically under sub-heading 6815.10. The Tribunal found that the exclusion in Note 1(a) to Chapter 84 applies, thereby excluding the goods from classification under Chapter 84, even though they are parts of machinery.
7. Separate Judgments:
Justice U.L. Bhat, President, and other members delivered separate concurring judgments, agreeing with the conclusion that the goods should be classified under sub-heading 6815.10. They emphasized the alignment of the Customs Tariff with HSN and the persuasive value of HSN Explanatory Notes.
Final Decision:
The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order classifying the goods under sub-heading 6815.10 was upheld.
-
1997 (11) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Supreme Court directions for in-house conciliation.
2. Necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. for prosecution.
3. Liability of the company versus its employees for offences.
4. Requirement of sanction for acts done in discharge of official duties.
Detailed Analysis:
Point No. (i): Applicability of Supreme Court Directions for In-House Conciliation
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's directions in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59 of 1988, which mandated in-house conciliation for disputes between government ministries and public sector undertakings, should apply. However, the court clarified that these directions pertain only to civil disputes and monetary claims, not to criminal complaints filed under penal provisions like those in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court emphasized that the allegations involved suppression of accounts and evasion of excise duty, which necessitate prosecution. Therefore, the Supreme Court's directions do not impede the current criminal proceedings.
Point No. (ii): Necessity of Sanction Under Section 197 Cr. P.C. for Prosecution
The petitioner contended that she was a public servant as defined under Section 21 I.P.C. and argued that her prosecution required prior sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. The court examined various judgments, including those from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, to determine whether an employee of a government company qualifies as a public servant. It was concluded that although the first accused company is a government company, the petitioner, as its Managing Director, was not discharging duties connected with the affairs of the State. The court referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in S.S. Dhanoa v. Delhi Municipality, which distinguished between statutory bodies and companies incorporated under the Companies Act. Consequently, the petitioner did not qualify as a public servant requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C.
Point No. (iii): Liability of the Company Versus Its Employees for Offences
The petitioner argued that only the company, and not its employees, should be liable for the offences. The court referred to Section 9AA of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which provides for vicarious liability of certain persons for offences committed by a company. Citing judgments from the Supreme Court, the court held that managers and directors of companies could be prosecuted if they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The complaint contained specific allegations against the petitioner for gross negligence and failure to ensure proper payment of excise duty, thus sustaining the prosecution against her.
Point No. (iv): Requirement of Sanction for Acts Done in Discharge of Official Duties
The petitioner cited several judgments to argue that sanction is necessary for acts done in the discharge of official duties, including dereliction of duty. However, the court reiterated its finding that the petitioner was not a public servant under Section 21(12) I.P.C. and was not discharging any affairs of the State. Therefore, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. did not apply, making it unnecessary to examine this point further.
Conclusion
The court dismissed the revision, holding that there were no merits in the points raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the connected Crl. M.P. was also dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 113
The High Court allowed the revision application, challenging a Tribunal order, stating that cleaning and tanka process on old ornaments does not amount to manufacturing as per Section 2(e-l) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order and set aside consequential orders.
-
1997 (11) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Disallowance of deemed Modvat credit by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs.
2. Ex parte order confirming demand and imposing penalty by respondent No. 4.
3. Dismissal of appeal in default by the appellate authority.
4. Failure to exercise power as the appellate authority in accordance with law.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a SSI unit availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93, claimed deemed Modvat credit on re-rolling iron and steel ingots. The Superintendent issued a show cause notice disallowing a portion of the credit. The petitioner denied the allegations and reiterated entitlement to the credit.
2. Despite the petitioner's denial, an ex parte order was passed by respondent No. 4 confirming the demand and imposing a penalty. The petitioner was not represented during this process, leading to the order being issued without the petitioner's input.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner's appeal against the order was dismissed in default. The petitioner argued that the dismissal was solely due to non-compliance with directions during the appeal process and contended that the appellate authority failed to exercise its power in accordance with the law.
4. The High Court observed that the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with a condition for stay did not justify dismissal in default. The Court held that the Tribunal should have decided the appeal on its merits and that the failure to follow principles of natural justice required setting aside the impugned order.
5. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, ensuring a hearing for the petitioner on the merits of the case. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in the appellate process.
-
1997 (11) TMI 111
The writ petition challenged an order under Section 35EE of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding a discrepancy in molasses storage. The petitioner's appeal was initially accepted, but the Central Government partially restored the original order. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that a further appeal could have been filed, dismissing the writ petition.
-
1997 (11) TMI 110
Issues Involved
1. Entitlement to Special REP Certificates.
2. Compliance with Export Obligations.
3. Interpretation of the "+/-5%" Clause.
4. Proportionate Reduction of Benefits.
Detailed Analysis
Issue 1: Entitlement to Special REP Certificates
The respondent, an exporter of unmanufactured tobacco, sought Special REP Entitlement Certificates after fulfilling export obligations under the Advance Licence scheme. The appeals challenge the denial of these certificates by the appellants, who argued that the respondent did not meet the quantity requirements stipulated in the licences.
Issue 2: Compliance with Export Obligations
The respondent imported corrugated fibre board boxes duty-free under Advance Licences for exporting unmanufactured tobacco. The export obligations required specific quantities and values of tobacco to be exported. In both cases, the respondent exported less than the required quantities but exceeded the required values significantly. The shortfall in quantity was 1,70,511 Kgs. (2.3%) in the first case and 2,32,710 Kgs. (2.3%) in the second case. Despite this, the respondent fulfilled the value obligations, exporting tobacco worth Rs. 30,40,13,000/- and Rs. 52,13,79,622/- respectively, far exceeding the stipulated values.
Issue 3: Interpretation of the "+/-5%" Clause
The core dispute centered on the interpretation of the clause "each carton 200 Kgs. +/-5%" in the DEEC Book. The respondent argued that this margin should apply to the overall quantity of exported tobacco, allowing for a permissible deviation. The appellants contended that the clause referred to the weight of tobacco in each individual carton, not the total exported quantity. The court agreed with the appellants, noting that the clause specifically mentioned "each carton," implying that the deviation margin applied to individual cartons rather than the total quantity.
Issue 4: Proportionate Reduction of Benefits
The court recognized that the respondent had fully utilized the imported boxes for exporting tobacco and had significantly exceeded the value obligations. The court found it unjust to deny the Special REP benefits entirely due to a minor shortfall in quantity, especially when the value of exports was substantially higher than required. The court directed that the Special REP benefits be proportionately reduced to account for the shortfall in quantity. This approach was consistent with a previous decision by the first appellant, where proportionate benefits were granted in similar circumstances.
Conclusion
Both writ appeals were allowed in part. The court modified the orders of the learned Single Judge, directing the first appellant to grant Entitlement Certificates to the respondent for claiming proportionate benefits of the Special REP facility, commensurate with the actual quantity of exported commodity. The decision balanced the need to adhere to export obligations with the recognition of the substantial value of exports achieved by the respondent.
-
1997 (11) TMI 109
Issues involved: Claim of customs duty at a concessional rate based on a notification for goods imported for use in the leather industry.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's judgment regarding the claim of the respondent for payment of customs duty at a concessional rate for Sodium Lauryl Sulphate imported from West Germany under Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated July 9, 1985, for use in the leather industry. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) required the respondent to prove the goods were used in the leather industry to be eligible for the concessional rate, which the respondent, being a trader, failed to do. The Tribunal, however, held that the import need not be made only by someone in the leather industry, citing the application of Sodium Lauryl Sulphate in leather binders and finishing.
The Additional Solicitor General argued that since the goods could be used for purposes other than the leather industry, the respondent should have shown sufficient evidence of the intended use for leather to claim the concessional rate. The Court noted the lack of evidence presented by the respondent and found merit in this argument. The respondent's Counsel referred to a previous judgment where the matter was remanded to allow the importer to provide evidence justifying the exemption claim.
Considering the circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remitted the matter for the respondent to present evidence demonstrating that the imported goods were indeed intended for use in the leather industry as claimed under the notification. No costs were awarded in this decision.
-
1997 (11) TMI 108
Issues involved: Interpretation of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff regarding the exigibility of quick lime and hydrated lime to Excise duty.
Summary:
The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that quick lime and hydrated lime were not exigible to Excise duty based on Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25. Chapter Note 2 specifies that certain processes like washing, crushing, grinding, etc., are covered under Heading Nos. 25.01, 25.03, and 25.05, but not processes like roasting or calcination. However, quick lime and hydrated lime are obtained by calcination, which falls outside the scope of Chapter 25. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise argued that the chapter note excludes products like calcium oxide obtained through roasting, but the exact interpretation was unclear. The Court noted that in technical matters, the Tribunal's findings should not be disturbed without valid reasons, and in this case, no such reasons were found. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (11) TMI 107
Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, review of assessment method, excise duty on asbestos cement products, validity of price lists, jurisdiction to review orders, availability of statutory remedy of appeal under S. 35F of the Act, exercise of extraordinary powers by the High Court under Art. 226.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged assessment orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, contesting the review of the assessment method by authorities through orders Annexure-G and H. Petitioner No. 1, a company manufacturing asbestos cement products in a backward area, received incentives from the State Government. The excisable goods manufactured by the company attracted a 25% ad valorem duty and a special excise duty. The petitioner submitted price lists under Rule 173C of the Central Excise Rules for determination of assessable value under S. 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
The petitioners argued that their price lists were duly approved in previous years without objections. They highlighted the difference in prices between goods sold in Madhya Pradesh and other states due to tax exemptions. Despite regular excise duty payments based on approved price lists, the authorities issued notices in 1990 to review the price lists, leading to modified orders and a demand for higher excise duty payments. Instead of appealing under S. 35F of the Act, the petitioners invoked Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The respondents contended that the orders were appealable under S. 35F, emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy. The petitioners argued that the authorities lacked the power to review orders, citing a judgment set aside by the Supreme Court. They urged the High Court to set aside the impugned orders based on the absence of review powers conferred on authorities.
The High Court considered the arguments, noting the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal under S. 35F of the Act. Referring to precedent, the Court held that the petitioners should pursue the statutory appeal route before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed the petitioners to file appeals within 30 days, emphasizing the need for the Appellate Authority to grant a hearing and pass a reasoned order.
The Court, while condoning the delay in filing appeals, maintained the interim stay order until the disposal of the appeals due to the backlog of cases at the Appellate Authority. The petition was disposed of without costs, with any security deposit to be refunded to the petitioners after verification.
-
1997 (11) TMI 106
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding excise duty valuation and price list approval.
Analysis:
The petition challenges a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, regarding excise duty valuation for manufacturing two-wheeler scooters. The petitioners argue that excise duty is chargeable based on value, determined under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They contend that the respondents had previously approved their price list, making the notice unjustified. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the petitioners sell goods to wholesale dealers in different regions at varying rates, creating a discrepancy. The respondents assert that the petitioners should appear before the authority and address the grounds of the notice.
The Counsel for the petitioners cites various judgments to support the maintainability of a writ under Article 226 even against a show cause notice, emphasizing the need to show jurisdictional issues or arbitrariness. Conversely, the respondents' Counsel relies on judgments stating that interference against show cause notices is unnecessary, and the noticee should address the authority directly.
The Court notes that the petition solely challenges the show cause notice and that the petitioners have not responded to it yet. The petitioners fear the notice is based on a judgment that has been set aside by the Supreme Court, questioning the authority's jurisdiction. Referring to legal precedents, the Court emphasizes that show cause notices are the beginning of a process and that the jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked against such notices unless there are clear jurisdictional errors or absence. The Court declines relief to the petitioners and directs them to submit a reply within a month, allowing objections as per the law, and advises the authority to consider all aspects and provide a reasoned order after a hearing.
In conclusion, the Court dismisses the petition without delving into the case's specifics, directing the parties to handle their costs. Any security amount is to be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1997 (11) TMI 105
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding duty exemption for cement labeled as 'sagol' over 'portland cement'. The appeal was dismissed. (Case Citation: 1997 (11) TMI 105 - SC)
-
1997 (11) TMI 104
Issues:
Classification of Tyre Cord Warp Sheet as Fabric or Yarn; Applicability of Tariff Items 18, 19, and 22; Legal validity of the order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise; Interpretation of judgments by Calcutta High Court, Supreme Court, and Bombay High Court; Res judicata principle based on dismissal of Special Leave Petition; Proper procedure for classification under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involves a textile company manufacturing Tyre Cord Warp Sheets, with a dispute arising over the classification of these sheets as either Fabric or Yarn under Tariff Items 18, 19, or 22. The company sought approval for classification under Tariff Item 18 based on a decision by the Calcutta High Court regarding a similar issue. The Superintendent of Central Excise warned of enforcement action if the classification was changed without approval. This led to the filing of writ petitions by the company, challenging the excise duty collected and seeking proper classification under the relevant tariff items.
The appellant's arguments relied heavily on the Calcutta High Court's decision, which held that warp sheets are considered yarn and not fabric. However, the Department cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that tyre cord fabric should be classified as textile fabric under Tariff Item 22. The learned single Judge considered the Supreme Court's decision as binding and did not take into account the Bombay High Court's judgment, which supported the Calcutta High Court's classification.
During the appeal, the appellant contended that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court affirmed the Calcutta High Court's decision, acting as res judicata. However, the Court emphasized the need to prove the method of manufacture for each case and highlighted the authority's right to classify or reclassify goods under the relevant tariff item as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules.
The Court directed the proper officer to pass a considered order on the classification application made by the appellant under Rule 173B(4), emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for the chosen tariff item. The findings of the learned single Judge were set aside, leaving the classification question open for the proper officer's determination to ensure the future collection of excise duty is not affected. The Court concluded by disposing of the Writ Appeals without any costs.
In summary, the judgment addressed the classification dispute of Tyre Cord Warp Sheets, emphasizing the proper procedure for classification under the Central Excise Rules and the authority's discretion in determining the appropriate tariff item. The Court's decision focused on the need for a reasoned order from the proper officer to avoid future disputes and ensure clarity in excise duty collection.
-
1997 (11) TMI 103
Whether the excess amount of duty, that is to say, duty in excess of 50% effective rate of duty, recovered in the shape of duty from the buyers, should not be considered as a part of the value of the goods for the purposes of excise?
Held that:- In the light of the explanation, what the appellants are entitled to exclude from the value of excisable goods is the effective duty of excise payable by them on these goods after taking into account the exemption Notification. They can, therefore, exclude only 50% of the duty which they have paid, being the effective duty of excise, from the value of the excisable goods. The balance amount if they have charged it from the customers, will form a part of the value of the goods for the purpose of calculation of excise duty. This explanation has been inserted by Finance Act, 1982 (14 of 1982) with retrospective effect from 1-10-1975 and it applied to the present case.
-
1997 (11) TMI 102
Whether the entire case of the prosecution as against appellant is wholly unbelievable as there is nothing on record to connect him with the alleged occurrence?
Held that:- In the present case several statements have been recorded under the Customs Act and marked as Ex. 23 to Ex. 31. They were all recorded on 2-2-1970. In the statement of Accused No. 1 he stated that PW 27 was driving the car of the appellant and he met him on the relevant date and requested him to bring gold from the vessel which was in the sea. He was also assured that he would be paid for the work by the appellant. He was instructed to bring gold near Jampore School. His statement implicates the appellant amply. His second statement was recorded on 3-2-1970 and the third on 11-7-1970. In the third statement he had stated that the machine for his boat was fitted with the help of the appellant and it was agreed between him and the appellant that the amounts payable for the work which he would do for the appellant could be adjusted towards the cost of the machine. According to him the appellant told him that if he had any work he would send a message through PW 27. The fourth statement of Accused No. 1 was recorded on 25-2-1972. The statements of Accused Nos. 2 to 7, 10 and 11 were also recorded on 2-2-1970. Accused No. 3 made a specific reference to the appellant. The statements recorded under the Customs Act have been duly proved by the concerned officials. The Courts below were satisfied that there was no threat or inducement and that the relevant provisions of law were explained to the persons who gave the statements. The statements were found to be voluntary and not vitiated in any manner. Hence, all those statements are admissible in evidence and it is clear therefrom that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he was prosecuted. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 101
Issues involved: Appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court regarding assessment of excisable goods and examination of price lists.
Summary:
The Supreme Court granted leave in an appeal by the Union of India against the Patna High Court's direction to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to promptly finalize the assessment of price lists submitted by a company. The High Court held that the price at which the company sold vehicles at the factory gate should be considered the normal price for valuation of excisable goods, and that the Assistant Collector could only request relevant documents for assessment purposes. The Court found that the price lists of the company's Regional Sales Offices were not relevant for the final orders.
The appellant argued that examination of prices at Regional Sales Offices was necessary due to different prices at the factory gate. However, it was noted that most sales were to dealers, with only a small portion directly to sub-dealers, and this argument was not raised before the High Court during the initial proceedings.
The Supreme Court opined that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition, as the Assistant Collector has the authority to conduct assessments as deemed appropriate, call for relevant documents, and make necessary inquiries for valuation. Any disagreement with the assessment order could be addressed through statutory remedies like appeals or revisions. The Court emphasized that it should not interfere with the assessment process or dictate the manner in which assessments are conducted.
The Court addressed complaints about prolonged assessments and emphasized that the Assistant Collector must determine all factual and legal aspects, including the need for inquiries to ascertain the value of excisable goods. The High Court cannot provide guidance on the assessment process.
Concluding that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment without costs, and directed the Assistant Collector to complete the assessment promptly.
-
1997 (11) TMI 100
Whether the provisions of the SAFEMA apply to the sale transaction entered into between the widow of Talab Haji Hussein, COFEPOSA detenu and the purchaser, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants?
Whether the purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice?
Whether the forfeiture of purchaser's flat in Dharam Jyoti Building by the authorities can be treated as double forfeiture on the basis of the same tainted money of the COFEPOSA convict only because the subsequent property purchased by the purchaser's vendor in Shivasthan Co-operative Society has also been forfeited to the Government under the SAFEMA?
Whether the transaction in favour of the purchaser could be cleared on principles analogous to section 9 of the SAFEMA by imposing fine in lieu of forfeiture on the peculiar facts of this case?
Held that:- The transaction of purchase by the appellants' predecessor Tayab Ali was also hit by section 11 of the SAFEMA. Consequently, in 1981, when the purchaser purchased this property from Tahira Sultana, she had no interest in the said flat which she could convey to the appellants' predecessor. In substance, it amounted to selling of the Central Government's property by a total stranger in favour of the purchaser. No title, therefore, in the said property passed to the appellants' predecessor. The appellants' predecessor, therefore, had no legal defence against the claim of the authorities in calling upon the appellants as heirs of the original purchaser to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the Central Government as full owner thereof. Both the points 1 & 2 for determination, therefore, are answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
So far as point 3 at the time when the earlier order of October 12, 1977, was passed the said disputed property clearly reflected the utilisation of tainted money of ₹ 88,562. If subsequent dealing with the said property is found to be unauthorised and inoperative in law and if such subsequent transaction qua the said property remains a still-born one no life can be infused in it on account of the subsequent forfeiture of some other property of the original vendor when a subsequent forfeiture has stood on its own and has become final. The third point for determination, therefore, also is held against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
On pint 4 the transaction of purchase by Tayab Ali was an exercise in futility. Such a still-born transaction cannot be resurrected by passing an order of fine in lieu of forfeiture. The forfeiture of this very property had already taken place on October 12, 1977, and which order got ultimately confirmed by the Bombay High Court. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the appellants to contend that the clock should be put back and the October 12, 1977, order may be converted into fine in lieu of forfeiture especially when Tahira Sultana against whom that order has operated, has finally lost in her challenge to the said order. The fourth point for determination, therefore, has also to be rejected and stands decided against the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 99
Benami Transactions - Held that:- It is true that the respondents-defendants who have raised a defence of benami in their written statement have to discharge the initial burden of proof and establish the plea of benami. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The lower appellate court had considered the evidence adduced by both the sides and arrived at a conclusion that the defendants had discharged the said burden. When both the sides had adduced evidence, the question of burden of proof pales into insignificance. The High Court was, therefore, right in not interfering with the said finding. The said finding of fact cannot be canvassed in this civil appeal by the plaintiff or her legal representative.
The decision in R. Rajagopal Reddy's case [1995 (1) TMI 67 - SUPREME Court] is not in any manner shaken by anything said in Nand Kishore Mehra's case [1995 (7) TMI 64 - SUPREME Court] and that both the cases deal with different aspects of the Act as stated above and each of the cases continues to govern different provisions of the Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1997 (11) TMI 98
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 20 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 for alleged concealment of income.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of section 20 regarding the imposition and quantum of penalty.
3. Reduction in penalty amount based on the reduction in the quantum of tax payable on concealed income.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to tax revision cases arising from a common order of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant, an assessee under the Act, was issued notices proposing penalties for alleged wilful concealment of income from agricultural lands for specific years. The assessing authority imposed a penalty equivalent to 50% of the tax due for the years in question. The appellant appealed the decision, which was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal, leading to the filing of tax revision cases.
2. The court analyzed the provisions of section 20 of the Act, which authorize the imposition of penalties for concealment of income. The section stipulates that if the authority is satisfied that a person has concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of agricultural income, a penalty not exceeding the tax amount may be imposed. The court emphasized that the officer's discretion in determining the penalty should be reasonable and based on the facts of each case. The appellant argued against the deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but the court held that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the absence of dishonest intent.
3. The court addressed the contention regarding the quantum of penalty, specifically in relation to the tax payable on the concealed income. The appellant argued for a reduction in the penalty corresponding to any reduction in the tax amount due to modified assessment orders. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the penalty should not exceed 50% of the tax payable on the concealed income. The court directed the officer to amend the penalty order based on the reduction in the tax amount as per the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order.
4. The judgment also referred to the relevant provision in the Act regarding changes in assessment or penalty orders following a revision. Sub-section (7) of section 78 outlines the procedure for amending assessment or penalty orders based on revisions, ensuring the appropriate refund or collection of tax or penalty amounts. The court upheld the levy of penalty at 50% of the tax and directed the officer to adjust the penalty amount in accordance with the reduction in the tax due on the concealed income.
In conclusion, the court confirmed the imposition of the penalty under section 20, clarified the interpretation of the provisions regarding penalty quantum, and directed the officer to adjust the penalty amount based on the modified tax assessments.
-
1997 (11) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether hydraulically operated tippers used by a general works contractor qualify as road transport vehicles for the purpose of claiming investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act.
Details of the Judgment:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a case referred by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding the eligibility of a firm engaged in civil contract works to claim investment allowance on the cost of tippers purchased for their business operations. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had denied the deduction under section 32A, contending that tippers were road transport vehicles and thus excluded from the allowance. However, the Tribunal disagreed, interpreting the term "road transport vehicles" in a broader sense to include vehicles used for transporting goods and persons. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous ruling and the Income-tax Rules. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal, emphasizing that the ordinary meaning of "road transport vehicles" should apply in the absence of a specific definition in the Income-tax Act. It was noted that tippers are not commonly referred to as transport vehicles and should not be excluded from investment allowance if they are essential tools for the business operations. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the investment allowance on the tippers and disposing of the reference case without costs.
............
|
9911796707
