Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (5) 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 61 to 80 of 427 Records

• 2003 (5) TMI 477 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Valuation - Interest on receivables

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... /MZ/CE/2003, M/s. Kodak India Limited. Calculation of Central Excise duty payable, Ref Annexure given by Applicant along with SC(E)-1 application Sr.No. YEAR Total L.mts of Cinematogrphic film cleared Price cum duty in Rs. Excise Duty rate adv. Assessable value in Rs. C.Ex. Duty payable on revised A.V Duty already paid at the time of clearance in Rs. Differential duty payable in Rs. 1 1995-1996 4799618 37812399 10 34374908 3437491 3371794 65697 2 1996 - 1997 7124927 62006205 10,15,18 54802437 7203768 7066208 137560 3 1997-1998 10559140 95046730 18 80548076 14498654 14202431 296223 4 1998 - 1999 3659168 35859846 18 30389700 5470146 5361413 108733 5 1999 - 2000 (up to May lsquo 2000) -------- 3677026 16 3169850 507176 497719 9457 TOTAL DUTY PAYABLE Rs.6,17,670/- (Rupees Six lakhs seventeen thousand six hundred seventy only.) Duty admitted and paid by applicants Rs.3,04,899/- BALANCE DUTY PAYABLE Rs.3,12,771/- (Rupees Three lakhs twelve thousand seven hundred seventy-one only.)

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 476 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement of case - Immunities - Grant of - Excisability - Manufacture

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... plicants are given full immunity from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. All the applicants are also granted full immunity from penalty under the Central Excise Act/Rules, 1944. So far as interest is concerned, Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act was inserted in September 1996 while the period of evasion is 1994. Hence, no interest can be levied on the applicant under the said Section by virtue of the Apex Court rsquo s decision in the case of Elgi Equipment reported at 2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (S.C.). In terms of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also no interest can be levied on the applicant because most of the duty payable in this case was paid by the applicant before issue of the Show Cause Notice. 28. emsp Above immunities are granted in terms of Section 32K of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 29. emsp This settlement order shall be void if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 475 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement of case - ‘Case’ - Definition of - Recovery of Modvat and Recovery of Central Excise duty - Distinction between

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 474 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement of case - Admission - SSI units

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lity demanded in the SCN, namely Rs. 33,33,431/-. Even as per the SCN, M/s. P and C have already paid Rs. 23,44,000/-. The applicant shall pay the balance of the admitted amount of Rs. 9,89,431/- (Rs. 33,33,431/- Rs. 23,44,000/-) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The manner of payment of the balance amount is left to the applicant. No doubt, he can bring to the notice of jurisdictional officer his eligibility to avail the CENVAT credit in the light of CEGAT ruling referred to and relied upon by him, and if and when the sought for credit is allowed, he may utilize the same to discharge duty on the final product. 11. emsp Both the applications are allowed to be proceeded with in terms of sub-section (1) of Sec. 32F of the CEA, 1944. With the admission of these applications, this Bench acquires the exclusive jurisdiction to perform the functions of any officer of the Central Excise in respect of this case as per sub-section (2) of Sec. 32-I of the CEA, 1944.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 473 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement application - Maintainability of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t imported by them and cleared duly by filing Bill of Entry for heavy melting scrap. Hence, we are unable to accept this argument of the Advocate. 12. emsp As a result, the Bench concludes that the applicant had admittedly imported these goods and cleared them without declaring to the customs and without their knowledge. Hence, this is a case of non-declaration and smuggling, and the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court referred to in para 4 above will clearly apply to this case. 13. emsp Accordingly, by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in the case referred to supra, the application of M/s. Chen Sing Ventures, Chennai - 600 081 is rejected. Since the application of the main applicant itself is rejected, the application of Shri P. Chandrasekar, Partner of the applicant firm is also rejected. Both the applications are, therefore, not allowed to be proceeded with in terms of sub-section (1) of Sec. 127C of the Customs Act, 1962.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 472 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
  

  Settlement of case - Admission

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tion of SSI unit also serves the purpose of providing a basis for comparison to determine as to whether any fresh disclosure has been made in the settlement application and, if so, whether the said disclosure exceeded Rs. 2 lakhs - another condition prescribed under clause (c) of the first proviso to Sec. 32E(1). The Bench is, therefore, not convinced with the argument of the Chartered Accountant that applying the ratio of the order of the Principal Bench referred to above, the declaration filed under the erstwhile Rule 173B coupled with the fact that they had registered with the C.E. department should be sufficient to treat the application as satisfying the condition under clause (a) ibid. 9. emsp Accordingly, since the application does not satisfy the conditions under clause (a) of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 32E of the CEA, 1944, the application is rejected in terms of sub-section (1) of Sec. 32F of the said Act, and is not allowed to be proceeded with.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 471 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the case of Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1995 54 ITD 394 (Bang.), Madras Radiators and Pressings Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1996 59 ITD 515 (Mad.) and Fluid Air (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 1997 63 ITD 182 (Mum.). In these cases the Tribunal took into consideration that in the second proviso to section 43B, the words during the previous year are missing. As per the mandate of the section sum actually paid during the previous year are to be allowed. The proviso cannot restrict the scope of the section. The sum actually paid during the previous year, therefore, is to be allowed as per the mandate of the section. The sum paid after the previous year cannot be allowed. 6. The payment for the month of March was made belatedly beyond the previous year. As such, it cannot be allowed. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow the sum actually paid during the previous year. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 470 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Powers of Appellate Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e as additional evidence. It is also necessary for the Assessing Officer to look into the circulars and instructions of CBDT on the question of jewellery to be allowed to a family without mentioning on proof source of acquisition. The Assessing Officer should also consider judge made law on the point. I, therefore, admit additional evidence and set aside the impugned assessment with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after considering all relevant material which is available with him or produced by the assessee and then pass a fresh order warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. The remand to the Assessing Officer is necessary as Revenue cannot have adequate opportunity in these appellate proceedings to properly rebut the evidence relied upon by the assessee before me. Let this matter go to the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. 10. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 469 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Accrual of Income, Method of accounting, Depreciation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... at the claim that the foreman rsquo s commission or remuneration should be related to or determined on the basis of each chit completing its period, is not justified in view of the clear provisions of the CFA in regard to both accrual and right over it as brought out above. The change in the method of accounting of commission or remuneration from January 1, 1986, is therefore, not justified for the aforesaid reasons. The claim of the assessee is accordingly rejected. 12. The other issue in appeal is with reference to the rate of depreciation permissible to generators driven by petrol or diesel. The authorities were of the opinion that the rate of 30 per cent is applicable to generators that run on wind energy or other renewable energy device and rejected the claim of the appellant. In our opinion and on the facts of the present case, no interference is called for with the orders of the authorities and we uphold the orders. 13. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 468 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Business disallowance - Excessive or unreasonable payments,

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... After considering the factual position in detail he has directed to delete the addition. 8. Ld. D.R. has supported the order of Assessing Officer and ld. A.R. has defended the order of CIT(A). 9. After considering the submissions and on perusal of the orders of the authorities below we are of the opinion that the facts of the case supports the view taken by ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the assessee was expanding its business, therefore, a suitable godown was required. To fulfil this requirement the assessee took on lease the said premises w.e.f. 1-4-1992. It was pleaded on behalf of the assessee that the said premises belonged to M/s. Ram Fabrics and the payment made was very reasonable comparing the fair rental value. Considering all such facts, there was no reason for an ad hoc disallowance of 50 per cent of the rent. Resultantly, we hereby affirm the finding of ld. CIT(A) and reject this ground of the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 467 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Deductions - Exporters

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the interest received and computed under the head lsquo Income from other sources rsquo . In this case the Assessing Officer treated the interest income as income from other sources. As held by the Madras High Court in South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT 1999 240 ITR 241 the interest paid by the assessee on the borrowed funds cannot be deducted under section 57 from the interest received on deposits. It is not the case of the assessee that for earning the interest income from bank it had borrowed funds. Hence, in our opinion the interest paid by the assessee cannot be deducted from the interest earned by him. By respectfully following the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K.S. Subbiah Pillai and Co. India Ltd. (supra) we hold that only gross income has to be taken for the purpose of reducing 90 per cent and not the net interest income. We find no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities on this issue. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 466 - ITAT AGRA
  

  Cash credits - Assessment year 1990-91

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... an to the assessee and the Assessing Officer while examining these creditors has accepted and confirmed the loan advanced by them. Therefore, keeping in mind the small amount of loan given by each creditor and respectfully following the decision discussed in foregoing paragraphs we do not find any justification for sustaining the addition of Rs. 71,000 and interest thereon of Rs. 5,135. Therefore, we reverse the order of the CIT(A). Thus, the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed. Appeal No. 5332/Delhi/1995 10. The only ground of appeal is that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing relief of Rs. 55,000 plus interest thereon against the addition of Rs. 1,26,000 being various unexplained cash creditors, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. For the reasons discussed by us in assessee rsquo s appeal, we dismiss the appeal of the department. 12. In the result, assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed and departmental appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 465 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Application for staying of recovery of interest - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the requirement is to deposit the duty or penalty before the Appeal is heard under the provisions of the Act - application is not maintainable - dismissed

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 463 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS (APPEALS)
  

  Valuation - Job work

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... other, in the absence of any such finding, or evidence, the assessable value of the goods in question can not be based upon the selling price of M/s. ACL at their sale depots. The assessable value has to be determined in accordance with the manner prescribed under Rule 11 of the New Valuation Rules, 2000 read with Rule 6 read with the above two decisions of the Apex Court, as clarified by the Board in their Circular No. 619/10/2002-CX., dated 19-2-2002. 17. emsp So far as the adjudicating authority rsquo s findings on imposition of penalty and recovery of interest are concerned, I may observe that since no demand of differential duty is held sustainable, no case for imposition of penalty and/or recovery of interest survives against the Appellants. 18. emsp In view of the above, I set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allow the subject appeal with all its consequential relief to the Appellants as per law. 19. emsp The subject appeal is disposed off in the above manner.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 462 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation - Captive consumption - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Demand - Quantification of

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 461 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
  

  Rectification of mistake - Recall of order - Retrospective amendment - EXIM

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ot acting as a Court of appeal or exercising what is known as power of review under Order 47 of CPC. It is therefore held that, the appeal of the Appellants which was allowed in part by our earlier order dated 17-11-2000 has to be recalled and allowed in full. The confirmation of the payment in respect of the duty will have to be changed with a declaration that the show cause notice issued in this case is premature. Consequently the appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any. Ordered accordingly. 16. emsp As far as the miscellaneous application filed by the department for stay of the operation of the order made on 27-11-2000 is concerned that application is dismissed as infructuous as we have recalled our order dated 27-11-2000. Hence the application filed by the Department has been dismissed as infructuous. As far as the other applications filed by the applicant - assessee is concerned in view of what we have held it stands disposed of in favour of the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 460 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
  

  Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the claim of the petitioner it was incumbent upon the petitioner to disclose further particulars in support of their claim. Similarly, since the company had denied receipt of the statutory notice at the registered office the petitioner should have amended his petition by incorporating sufficient materials to prove the case of insolvency. The same was not done in the instant case. Assuming that the company had lost its substratum (although no such evidence was produced by the petitioner) the petitioner herein failed to show that disappearance of substratum had imperiled the chance of recovery of the claim of the petitioner. In the result the winding up petition fails and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the claim which would be open for decision in an appropriate future proceeding, if brought against the company. There would be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 459 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Judicial discipline - Remand

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and order by the Commissioner (Appeals), in my view, the matter deserves to be sent back to the adjudicating authority for complying with the directions and then decide the matter de novo after applying mind to the facts of the case and documents brought on record by both the sides after affording on opportunity of hearing, without taking into consideration the initial order-in-original which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stands modified to the extent that the matter is sent to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision. Since the show cause notice was issued as long back as in 1998, the adjudicating authority shall make every attempt to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The appellants are also directed to cooperate with the (sic) for the expeditious disposal of the matter. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands disposed of.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 458 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Interpretation of statute - Countervailing duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... to the plain words of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. rdquo 29. emsp In Amar Steel Industries v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 44 (Calcutta), Ruma Pal, J., as Her Lordship then was, speaking for the Calcutta High Court, held that the rate of additional duty leviable under the Act is directly linked with the rate of excise duty. Since the rate of excise duty in respect of Tariff Item No. 89.08 under the Central Excise Tariff being nil by virtue of Notification No. 167/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, the rate of additional duty in respect of Tariff Item No. 89.08 under the Customs Tariff Act must also be nil. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow writ appeal Nos. 6077, 6078, 6079 and 6080 of 1999 and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-7-1999 and allow writ petition Nos. 38005, 38006, 43567 and 26685 of 1993, as prayed for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in these appeals.

  ---

• 2003 (5) TMI 457 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Remission of duty - Compounded Levy Scheme

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... entral Excise on 16-2-2000, be considered as an intimation of closure. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, held that the intimation regarding starting of factory was not given. The facts of the present case are peculiar in nature. The Compounded Levy Scheme came to end on 31-3-2000 and the factory of the appellants remained closed even on that day. This was also informed by the appellants vide letter dated 31-3-2000, which was duly received by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and the matter requires reconsideration because the abatement claim filed by the appellants requires verification to the effect that whether the factory of the appellants remained closed during this period or not. As, the matter requires reconsideration, the impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.

  ---

12345678........ 22