|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 220 Records
-
1991 (5) TMI 80 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
A Firm,Financial Year,Previous Year, Share In Partnership,Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... m partnership firm and income from remuneration earned abroad. It is open to an assessee for his own business and to safeguard his interests, to maintain an account even with respect to sources of income other than business or profession. Considering the entire circumstances, I hold that assessee had made up the account up to Diwali Samvat Year 2032 and had exercised option to adopt Samvat Year 2032 as previous year for both sources of income and as such said previous year was bound to be adopted for both the sources, I confirm the finding of AAC on this point. Admittedly, the assessee resided for 23 days in the previous year which is Samvat Year 2032. Consequently, his status would be that of non-resident. The result would that the income earned abroad by him would not be includible in the income liable to the assessed. The AAC was therefore, justified in deleting the inclusion of Rs. 40,000 made by the Income-tax Officer in the income of assessee. 7. The appeal is dismissed
-
1991 (5) TMI 79 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Baggage - Re-export ... ... ... ... ..... a dispute. Further they had reconciled to re-export the goods and did not, therefore, come in revision. The redemption fine indicated by Collector (Appeals) in his (now annuled) order appears to be reasonable. 15. In the light of the above discussions Government, in exercise of powers vested in them under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 pass the following order ORDER 16. Order-in-Appeal No. 74/90-Baggage dated 3-1-1990 issued by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is hereby annuled, and further the order-in-original No. S/1-UB-2423/89-90. P, dated 7-9-1989/13-10-1989 issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Bombay is upheld with a modification that redemption of goods will be available for re-export under Section 125 ibid, on payment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). Imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) is also imposed. 17. This option of re-export should be availed within a period of three months.
-
1991 (5) TMI 78 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rebate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... ty had already been neutralisted by the availment of credit. Therefore, in effect the electric motors can be said to have been exported without the burden of duty of Central Excise and no rebate would be available under Rule 12A/191-A. 6. During the course of hearing on 19-2-1991, Shri C.B. Subhash, acting on behalf of the applicant company, while admitting the availment of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on electric motors which were actually bought out items, maintained that they were unable to use the credit as their goods were cleared without payment of duty under bond for export. But that is a different matter, not related to the issue at hand. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and notwithstanding the fact that (assuming) the party has not been able to avail of the MODVAT credit, Government does not find any merits in the party s claims and holds that the impugned order-in-appeal is legally incorrect. 8. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the order-in-original is restored.
-
1991 (5) TMI 77 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... orders-in-appeal as relate to case of loss of goods... during the course of processing of the goods in a warehouse or in storage, whether in a factory or in warehouse. Thus, so far as an activity in a factory is concerned, losses during storage in a factory alone can be decided by Government. 5. The position here is that the goods, viz., MEK Oxime (liquid) were lost during repacking activity in the applicant s factory. A factory is defined in Section 2(e) and is covered by an L-4 licence. It is different from a warehouse under Rule 140. In the instant case the goods were lost in the course of re-packing (which is an activity connected to manufacturing and certainly not to storage). Further it was in a factory and not in a warehouse. On these considerations the case seems to be out of the jurisdiction of Government under Section 35EE of the Act. 6. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the party to move an appeal before CEGAT if so advised.
-
1991 (5) TMI 76 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... esult the two impugned orders in appeal are set aside and the orders in original are restored. 9. There are two more revision applications registered under F. No. 373/4/DBK/90-Cus. II and F. No. 373/33/DBK/90-Cus. II against Order-in-Appeal No. M-Cus.-2176 to 2180/89 dt. 30-8-1989 and M-Cus-3216/89 dt. 24-10-1989 by M/s. Madura Coats Ltd., Bangalore and passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras wherein the Appellate authority had rejected the applicants appeals and upheld the orders of the Original authority of rejecting the applicants claims of drawback under sub-serial No. 2502(A) of the relevant Drawback Schedule in respect of export of cotton sewing thread. Since the facts of these revision applications are common with the review proposal above, the same are also ordered to be disposed of accordingly in terms of orders passed in the review proposal as above, that is to say the two revision applications are rejected for the reasons stated in the review proposal.
-
1991 (5) TMI 75 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Drawback - Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... vity connected with the manufacture of goods as envisaged by Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act 1983 (12) E.L.T. 77 (Gujarat) which is a judgment by High Court of Gujarat . Whether, therefore, it will be covered under Section 75 ibid is another issue but its export under Section 74 ibid is clearly excluded as plastic package here has been used in an activity connected with manufacture. 10. Finally, in general Note 3 to the Public Notice No. DRAWBACK/PN-9/87 dated 30-5-1987 it is clearly mentioned that the rates of drawback expressed against the various sub-serial numbers. In the said public notice are inclusive of drawback for packing material unless otherwise, provided under any sub-rule. Hence the general presumption is that the drawback on goods exported includes that on packing material also. On this ground too drawback claim is not permissible in this case. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, Govt. does not find any merit in the revision application. The same is rejected.
-
1991 (5) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Confiscation of vessel ... ... ... ... ..... requisite knowledge and the reason to believe u/s 112(b) is on the department or the prosecution while in respect of u/s 115(2) the burden is cast on the petitioners themselves. The acquittal of the Master of the vessel by the Magistrate of the charges u/s 135 of the Act does not follow that the vessel is not liable to confiscation u/s 115 of the Act. There is no infirmity in the order of the Revisional Authority and we see no ground to interfere in the same. 24.We also notice that the Board as well as the Revisional Authority have already moderated and reduced the fine to Rs. 1,40, 340/- which has been imposed in lieu of confiscation of vessel. The authorities have exercised their discretion and the same is just, fair and proper in the circumstances of the present case. There is no scope for further interference in the matter and no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present proceedings. The petition is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Rate of duty and tariff valuation - Customs - Words and phrases - 'Retrospective', meaning of
-
1991 (5) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... dings of the Tribunal are factual in nature and that no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The fact remains that no entries were made in RG-1 register or any other register. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the S.C.ooters cannot be sold in a market unless they are properly registered and that, therefore, there is no room for any clandestine removal. According to him the violation is merely technical in nature. We are, however, of the opinion that the said contention is neither acceptable in principle nor can it be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. The registers provided by rules must be maintained and it is no answer to say that the S.C.ooters cannot be sold without paying the duty, we cannot also entertain the proposition that unless duty is paid, S.C.ooters cannot be sold or disposed of. Suffice it to any that the questions of law suggested do not arise from the Tribunal s order. 5. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
1991 (5) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Refund - Interest payable thereon ... ... ... ... ..... , the petitioners were paid back the amount deposited by them. From the averments made in the petition, it would appear that after the decision by the Tribunal, demands were made by the petitioners and ultimately they had to serve legal notice as well. The petitioners had taken up the matter regarding refund of the amount after they obtained the order of the Tribunal in their favour but the payment was not made. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to award interest to the petitioner from the date of filing of the revision application before the Central Government which was treated as appeal by the Tribunal, till the date of repayment. It was really a demand for refund which was allowed. 10. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents 1 and 3 to pay interest on Rs. 10,35,000 from the date of filing of the revision application before the Central Government till the date of payment at the rate of 12 p.a. 11. No orders as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Confiscation (Customs) - Misdeclaration of value ... ... ... ... ..... will stand discharged after a period of 7 days unless the Customs authorities are able to secure the order staying the final order from the Appellate authority. (5) If the adjudication proceeding is decided against the petitioner, the respondents will be at liberty to enforce the said bond after a period of 7 days from the date of the final order and subject to any order that may be obtained by the petitioner from the Appellate Court. 15. In view of the delay in assessing the consignment in question the Customs Authorities will issue wharf rent exemption certificate for the period commencing from three weeks after the date of the arrival of the consignment in question until the same were warehoused under Section 49 of the Act. 16. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Stay of operation of the order is prayed for and the same is refused. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment on usual undertaking.
-
1991 (5) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Refund - Customs - Limitation - Computation of ... ... ... ... ..... f Customs (Appeals) dated 20th February, 1987 are also set aside and quashed. Let the application of the writ petitioner for refund be heard by the appropriate authority on merits without going into the question of limitation. Since the matter is pending for a fairly long period of time, the Departmental authorities are directed to hear the application for refund with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant shall continue to be in force and shall abide by the result of the refund application. 9. The appeal is disposed o f accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties with utmost expedition upon an application to that effect being made by the parties. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment.
-
1991 (5) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Valuation (Customs) - Price at the time of contracting relevant - Import control ... ... ... ... ..... under appeal as well as the order passed by the Collector impugned in this proceedings are set aside. The Joint Special Officers are directed to refund the sum lying in their hands within four weeks from the date of communication of this order along with the accrued interest thereon, after retaining their remuneration fixed at 250 G.Ms. each, to the writ petitioner. 42. The Joint Special Officers shall stand discharged after making over the sum lying in their hands with accrued interest thereon after taking their remuneration. If necessary, the Joint Special Officers will be at liberty to encash the fixed deposit receipts before maturity. 43. This order virtually disposes of the writ petition. The writ petition is also disposed of accordingly. Filing of paper book is dispensed with, and the undertaking given in that behalf will stand discharged. 44. Joint Special Officers and parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of the judgment and order.
-
1991 (5) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Sugar - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... first proviso. It is this show cause notice which is questioned in this writ petition. 3. We find that the contention raised by the petitioner is squarely covered in his favour by a bench decision of this Court in L.H. Sugar Factories v. Union of India, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 205. The said decision deals with an identical situation. Having regard to the language employed in Clause (1) of the first proviso, it was held that it is enough that there is production in the base period and further that even if the production of sugar during the period 1-5-1972 to 30-6-1972 is nil, the petitioner would still be entitled to the benefit of the said notification. The said decision is binding upon us and indeed it appears that it has been followed by another bench of this Court in Kesar Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 289. 4. Following the said bench decision, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... unication, they could not appear and make submission, we dispose of this application by setting aside the order passed on the said show cause notice which is impugned in this application. 2. We direct that, on 17th May 1991, a hearing should be given to the petitioners pursuant to the impugned show cause notice. It has been submitted before us by the learned counsel for the respondents that 17th May 1991 will be suitable for the concerned officer to give a hearing pursuant to the show cause notice. It is made clear that no notice for the hearing on 17th May 1991 need be given to the petitioners and the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken note of the said date so that the petitioners may appear. It is made clear that, if the petitioners do not appear on the said date, namely, on 17th May, 1991, the appropriate authority will be free to decide the show cause proceeding in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
-
1991 (5) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... the order dated 10-4-1991, the operation of the orders under appeal therein are stayed on the condition that the petitioner deposits 1/2 (half) the duty demanded under the said orders under appeal and furnishes security or bank guarantee, as the case may be, within two months from this day, for the balance. Furnishing of security or bank guarantee shall be at the option of the petitioner but this bank guarantee or security must be to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. This order shall be effective pending disposal of the said appeals. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions mentioned above, this order will cease to be operative at the end of two months. 7. For the period of said two months, the auction of the seized vehicles is stayed. If the petitioner complies with this order, they may be released back to him, otherwise they can be proceeded against according to law. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Licence - Suspension of licence - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... 81 of the Central Excise Rules does not specifically provide for giving an opportunity to show cause to the affected person before cancelling the licence but the rule also does not exclude such a procedure. It is well settled that in such a situation principles of natural justice have to be imported to make the rule reasonable. We accordingly do so and hold that it was necessary for the Superintendent or other Central Excise Authorities, as the case may be, to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause before taking such action or passing an order under Rule 181. Since this has not been done the impugned order dated 12th February, 1988, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed herewith. The writ-petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. 5. This order does not preclude the appropriate Central Excise Officer or Authority from taking proceedings afresh for suspending or cancelling the licence of the petitioner, if they are so advised, according to law.
-
1991 (5) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Contempt Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... /1, Strand Road, Calcutta-1. Respondent No. 3 - Mr. S.K. Pal Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Dum Dum Airport, Calcutta. 15. For the reasons aforesaid let a Rule be issued calling upon the respondents named above to show cause why they should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised or dealt with for having wilfully violated the order dated 12th April, 1991 passed by this Court by not making payment as directed to the petitioner of the amount of Rs. 4,96,970/-. The rule is made returnable on 5th June, 1991. On the returnable date the respondents shall appear personally before this Court at 10.30 A.M. and shall not leave the Court without permission. The department is to draw up and serve a copy of the rule expeditiously. Liberty is prayed for by Mr. N.C. Roy Chaudhury, Ld. Advocate, to deposit the amount in Court. Such prayer is refused. The order dated 12-4-1991 is absolutely clear. There is no warrant to modify that order in any manner whatsoever
-
1991 (5) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... the Supreme Court in Mata Din v. Aryan - AIR 1970 S.C. 1523. We find the courts have generally condoned the delay in such matters when the same was occasioned by a lawyer s mistake unless the same was made with an ulterior motive or to obtain an undue advantage or cause improper gain to his client. In this case also there is no ground to disbelieve the affidavit of the petitioners the then Advocate. 18. That the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 15-1-1979 is beyond doubt. That the petitioner took steps within the time specified to challenge the order is also not disputed. In this case therefore no negligence or lack of bona fides can be imputed to the petitioners. 19. For the reasons aforesaid I set aside the order dated 25th June, 1990. The CEGAT is directed to reconsider the petitioners application for condonation of delay in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (5) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Prosecution - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... e being in force with respect to such goods, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both. The first part deals with a case where in relation to any goods a person is knowingly concerned in any fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of any duty chargeable on such goods, obviously, therefore, the first part postulates that the goods in respect of which the offence is committed must be goods chargeable with duty. 10. Articles P. 3 to P. 38 recovered from suit-case Exhibits P. 1 and P. 2 having not been proved to be the ones on which duty was payable before they are exported to Pakistan do not fall within the mischief of Section 135(l)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Charge framed against the respondents was rightly held by the learned trial Court as not proved. Appeal against the acquittal of the respondents filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Amritsar, is obviously without merit and is consequently dismissed.
....
|
