Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1980 1980 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 201 Records

• 1980 (3) TMI 101 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  P.V.C. Insulated copper conductor - Liability to duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... of deciding the classification of the impugned copper wire under the aforesaid item. In the circumstances the wire in question falls outside the scope of Item 33B(I) and would be covered under Item 33B(2) of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Government further observe that the original show cause-cum-demand notice dated 25-3-1976 issued by the Assistant Collector was in respect of alleged short levy with regard to assessments for the period from 1-12-70 to 20-6-73. In the circumstances, the demand should have been made under the provisions of Rule 10 read with Rule 173J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Since the said demand-cum-show cause notice was issued after the expiry of a period of 1 year as fixed under the aforesaid rules for making such a demand, the said demand was in effect barred by limitation. 4. In view of the above, Government of India find no reason to interfere with the impugned order-in-appeal and drop the review proceedings.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Valuation when nominal sales are made at factory gate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s found higher than that with varying rates. 5. Government therefore are of the view that when prices are available at the factory gate however small may be the quantum of such sales, there should be no question of ascertaining the price in any other manner except by referring the invoices relating to the sales at the factory gate and accordingly the price charged should form the basis of assessment. The fact that the quantum of sale at the factory gate was small could not justify substitution of ex-factory price by a price deduced from sale at the applicant s depot at Delhi as done by the Assistant Collector, nor would it justify adoption of cumbersome method of calculating manufacturing expenses for arriving at assessable value as suggested by the applicants. 6. Government therefore set aside both the orders in appeal and in original and remand the case to the Assistant Collector with a direction to assess the goods on the basis of the prices available at the factory gate.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 99 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... re is no question of any one of them being a related person of the petitioners. 3. Government observe that during the relevant period from Oct. 1975 to March, 1977, the petitioner sold approximately 84 of his total sales to the aforesaid distributors. The remaining quantum of approximately 16 of sales were made to independent wholesale buyers making purchases at arms length. The assessable value of the goods in question should, therefore, be arrived at on the basis of the prices charged by the petitioners from the aforesaid independent wholesale buyers. In the circumstances Government consider that it is irrelevant to go into the question of whether or not the aforesaid distributors are related persons of the petitioners within the meaning of Sec. 4(b)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 4. In view of the above, Government set aside the Order-in-Appeal with the direction that the assessable value of the impugned goods should be redetermined in the aforesaid manner.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 98 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Cutting of Cold rolled strips of lower dimensions from the cold rolled strips of higher dimensions is not manufacture

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 97 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Esso shock absorber fluid G.T.

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... istant Manager appeared. Shri Bhave who explained the petitioners case stated that their contentions had already been accepted by the Board and based on a clarification issued by the Board, the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay had issued a Trade Notice No. 174(MP) BLENDED OR COMPOUNDED LUBRICATING OILS/(1)/1975 wherein it has been clarified that the speciality oils manufactured from duty paid base mineral oils/lube base stocks and pre/blended compounded lubricating oils falling under Items 6 to 11B, Central Excise Tariff would fall outside the purview of Item 11B, Central Excise Tariff . He also stated that in respect of the same product the Assistant Collector to had approved their further classification list classifying the goods under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff for the subsequent periods. He submitted a photostat copy of the approved classification list in this connection. Government accept the petitioners contentions and accordingly allow the revision application.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 96 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
  

  Duty paid under mistake - Civil suit not barred - Limitation - Mistake - Connotation of - Writ jurisdiction - Refund - Application rejected as time barred

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Confiscation - Attempt to export of foreign exchange Legality - Interpretation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the action taken against him for its illegal export is nonetheless correct in law. Accordingly, even if the petitioner was in transit the export of the foreign exchange in question was prohibited under sub-section (2) of Section 13 ibid. Consequently since the petitioner attempted to export the said foreign exchange illegally, he rendered it liable to confiscation under section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. That being the legal position, Government are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his judgment acquitting the petitioner that a transit passenger was not required to make a declaration about the foreign exchange in his possession. 6. In the circumstances the confiscation of the impugned foreign exchange in question by the authorities below is correct in law and is upheld. Considering the gravity of the offence the penalty of Rs. 5000/ cannot be considered to be excessive. The revision application fails and is rejected accordingly.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
  

  Customs - Valuation - Rate of duty chargeable on importation - Liability to duty - Criteria for - Words and Phrases - Resin Acid - Relevant date - Connotation

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 93 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Remand or de novo enquiry - "Without prejudice to the merits of the case" - Connotation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... his point of view, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was clearly intended by the order that proceedings should not stand finally terminated but that the merits of the charges against the petitioners should be inquired into and decided. Government also observe that the Gujarat High Court had taken into consideration the judgments cited by the counsel while deciding the Wintex Mills case. The latter judgment had also specifically said that the words without prejudice to the merits of the case mean that the merits of the case were saved in express terms and this was obviously done in order that the second respondent should be able to enquire into charges against the petitioner on the merits. In view of the above, the Collector s order that it will be legally proper to re-adjudicate the case after due compliance with the principles of natural justice and confirmed by the Board in appeal is correct in law. The revision application is, accordingly rejected.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
  

  End Use Certificate - Refund - `End Use Certificate'

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... not been proved to have been used in the manufacture, the importer will be liable to pay the duty. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim that portion of customs duty, which was paid on the synthetic grits, which are now proved to have been used in the manufacture by the petitioner of the End Use Certificate . Accordingly, the first respondent will now have to consider the quantity that is covered by the End Use Certificate produced by the petitioner and the duty in respect of which it would be eligible for the concessional rate and refund. 6. For this purpose alone the matter is remitted to the first respondent. The petitioner will produce whatever material it has before the Government of India, in order to prove its claim for refund. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for reconsideration in the light of the observations made in this order. No costs.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
  

  Tariff Value - Liquid chlorine - Fixation of - Guidelines regarding

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... (Mad.). In the instant case the position is worse as even the weighted average price has not been adopted as the tariff value so fixed by the impugned notifications. In our opinion, in fixing the tariff value of liquid chlorine at Rs. 500/- per metric tonne by the impugned notifications, the Central Government has exceeded its power under section 3 (2) as it has failed to follow the implied guidelines contained in sections 3 (1) and 4. These notifications are, therefore, invalid. 8. The petition is allowed. The impugned notifications in so far as they fix the tariff value of liquid chlorine are quashed. The excise authorities will assess the excise duty payable by the petitioner company on liquid chlorine for the period from December, 1972 to 18th February, 1975 on the invoice value and refund any extra amount collected as excise duty from the petitioner. The bank guarantee is discharged. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  

  Pot motors are not electric motors but components of spinning machines - Writ Jurisdiction

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ne the head or entry under which any particular commodity fell, but that if in doing so, these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt, i e. if the construction was perverse then it was a case in which the court was competent to interfere. 9. We are of the view that the reasons given by the Government of India was such as no reasonable person could adopt and was perverse. This compels us to interfere with the decision. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is allowed. We further quash the other impugned orders, dated 30th December, 1961, 10th September, 1962, Ist February, 1965 and 7th May, 1965 and direct the respondent to refund to the petitioner the aggregate sum of Rs. 1,98,116.84 collected from the petitioner as countervailing duty on pot motors imported by the petitioners. The petitioner has stated on page 9 of the writ petition that the duty under Entry 72(3) has already been paid by it. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Flush door - Classification - Plywood - `Or the like' - Connotation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... od face panels in addition to a board. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner are brought out the salient differences between the Flush Doors and the Boards at page 77 of the paperbook. Taking all these circumstances into account we are of the view that Flush Doors as they are known to the market and bought by the public are not included in Entry 16B. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The respondents will adjust the amount of excess excise duty on Flush Doors collected from the petitioner from April, 1973 onwards and revise the assessment of the petitioner, so that the excess duty recovered under Entry 16B is either refunded to the petitioner or adjusted with any existing liability of the petitioner to pay excise duty on Flush Doors. In short, the assessment on the Flush Doors manufactured by the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1973 is not to be made under Entry 16B, but under the residuary entry. No order as to costs.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 88 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Valuation - Goods sold below the cost of production - Validity

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... price under section 4. It was further explained that the loss on such sales was made up by charging higher prices to other category of buyers. 5. Government have carefully considered the submissions of the Petitioners. Govt. observe that proviso (i) to section 4(1)(a) lays down that where, in accordance with the normal trade practice of the wholesale trade in such goods, such goods are sold at different prices to different classes of buyers, then each such price shall be deemed to be the normal price. The industrial consumers buying the goods as O.E. do constitute a distinct class of buyers. Therefore in the absence of any evidence that dealings with O.E. buyers are not at arms length, the price has to be accepted as the normal price. Since the ingredients for determining the normal price under Section 4(1)(a) are available it was not necessary to go by the concept of cost of production. In the result the order-in appeal is set aside and the Revision Application is allowed.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
  

  Super-hardened Oil and Palm Oil - Classification

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mus shall issue restraining the respondents from levying and collecting excise duty upon the super-hardened groundnut and palm oils produced by the petitioner except under Entry 68 in the First Schedule to the said Act. The respondents are further directed to refund to the petitioner all excess amounts paid by it to the respondents in respect of the two products referred to above. The excess amount shall be computed after taking into account what the petitioner paid, since tile withdrawal of exemption notification, to the respondents in respect of the aforesaid two products and what was payable by it to them under Entry 68 in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Such computation shall be made and the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within three months from today. Whatever Bank Guarantee the petitioner has furnished in pursuance of the interim order made by this Court on 26th June, 1978 is cancelled. Rule is made absolute with costs.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
  

  Exemption - Valuation - Determination of - Board's directions - Validity - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative remedy - Existence of

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Valuation - Cost of packing material for packing of bearings - Mistake of law - Recovery of Excise duty - Limitation - Refund of duty illegally collected

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 84 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Confiscation - Criteria - Evasion of duty - Plea of leniency - Effect

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... onsider that in the circumstances of the case the order of confiscation of the fabrics and of the tempo used for transporting the goods is correct in law and the fines adjudged and the penalty imposed on the petitioners are not excessive considering the circumstances of the case. 6. As regards M/s. Hindustan Silk Mills and M/s. Asava Silk Mills, Government observe that the decision of the adjudicating authority holding that under the circumstances of the case the fabrics belonging to the petitioners that were utilised for concealing/camouflaging their duty paid goods correctly rendered themselves liable for confiscation is justified and is sustainable in law. Mens rea is relevant only for imposition of personal penalty and no penalty has been imposed on the petitioners. Further the redemption fines adjudged are also not excessive. 7. In view of the above, Government see no reason to interfere with the order in appeal. The three revision applications are accordingly rejected.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 83 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Rutenol Recryst

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... 6-tert-butyl-m-cresol) is a powerful anti-oxidant for rubber and has been recommended by various authorities and manufacturers for such use. The Government also observe that the petitioners, in fact, produced the supplier s leaflet on the product before the appellate authority and the leaflet itself shows that the suppliers has recommended its use as an anti-oxidant for rubber. Thus, the Government observe that there is no doubt on this point of fact that the material imported by the petitioners is a rubber anti-oxidant. Whether the petitioners are using it as a rubber anti-oxidant or not is not the determining factor for clarification of the impugned goods under Item 65 of CET, so long as the product is cognised as a rubber anti-oxidants in various literatures and recommended by the manufacturers for such use and set out in the earlier paragraphs. In this view, the Government of India find no merit in the Revision application. The revision application fails and is rejected.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Computation Period, Industrial Undertaking

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... that in the case of a registered firm, either the whole of the depreciation allowance or any part thereof for which effect had not been given by adjustment in the bands of the partners, will have to be added to the amount of the depreciation in the following year in the firm s assessment and be deemed to be part of the allowance for the later year and can be considered for set-off or adjustment in the hands of the firm. In fact, the same Bench which decided the case in CIT v. Nagapatinam Import and Export Corporation 1979 119 ITR 444 (Mad) applied the ratio of that judgment to the assessee in the present case with respect to a subsequent assessment year in the decision in CIT v. Madras Wire Products 1979 119 ITR 454 (Mad). In view of these two decisions, we have to hold that the Tribunal is right even on the second question. Accordingly, we answer both the references in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs Counsel s fee Rs. 500.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 11