|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 284 Records
-
1986 (7) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 178/76-Cus.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 177/76-Cus. for comparison.
3. Whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate retains its properties in the mixture.
4. Validity of the demand for customs duty.
5. Clarification from the Central Government.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 178/76-Cus.:
The appellant argued that Mono-Ammonium Phosphate used in the production of complex fertilizers, which are used as manure, should be exempt from customs duty under Notification No. 178/76-Cus. The Notification exempts Ammonium Phosphate from customs duty when imported for use as manure. The appellant contended that the Notification does not specify that Mono-Ammonium Phosphate must be used directly as manure. The court noted that the language of Notification No. 178/76-Cus. is clear and unambiguous, and the key issue is whether the appellant imported Mono-Ammonium Phosphate for use as manure.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 177/76-Cus. for comparison:
The respondent argued that Notification No. 177/76-Cus., which exempts Di-Ammonium Phosphate from customs duty when imported for use as manure or in the production of complex fertilizers, should be considered. The absence of similar language in Notification No. 178/76-Cus. indicates that the exemption is not applicable for the production of complex fertilizers. The court, however, held that the intention of the government should not be inferred by comparing the two Notifications, as Notification No. 178/76-Cus. is clear in its terms.
3. Whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate retains its properties in the mixture:
The court acknowledged the argument that if Mono-Ammonium Phosphate, when mixed with Urea and muriate of Potash, forms a new chemical compound and loses its identity, the appellant would not be entitled to the exemption. The court noted that this point was raised for the first time before it and was not considered by the lower tribunals. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to determine whether a new chemical compound is formed and whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate retains its properties in the mixture.
4. Validity of the demand for customs duty:
The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice demanding customs duty of Rs. 60,34,419.56, which was confirmed by the Collector of Customs and the Appellate Tribunal. The court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the case for further consideration on the specific issue of whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate retains its properties in the mixture.
5. Clarification from the Central Government:
The appellant sought clarification from the Ministry of Finance regarding the applicability of Notification No. 178/76-Cus. to the consignment in question. The court noted that the Central Government could issue a clarification regarding the applicability of the Notification to the consignment imported by the appellant for use in the production of complex fertilizers.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the case to it with a direction to decide whether Mono-Ammonium Phosphate retains its physical and chemical properties in the mixture used to produce complex fertilizers. The Appellate Tribunal is to decide this issue after giving both parties an opportunity to present their materials and arguments. The appeal was disposed of with this direction.
-
1986 (7) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in the assessable value for excise duty.
2. Refund claims for excess excise duty paid.
3. Limitation period for filing refund claims.
4. Deductibility of specific expenses (freight, octroi, additional tax on sales tax, interest on cash credit and bills of exchange).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of Post-Manufacturing Expenses in the Assessable Value for Excise Duty:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing copper and aluminum winding wire and copper cables, initially paid excise duty on the wholesale price, which included post-manufacturing expenses. This approach was challenged based on a Gujarat High Court judgment that excluded such expenses from the assessable value. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Limited held that several post-manufacturing expenses should be included in the wholesale price for excise duty purposes. Consequently, the petitioner could not press its claim based on the Gujarat High Court judgment but sought deductions for specific expenses allowed by the Supreme Court.
2. Refund Claims for Excess Excise Duty Paid:
The petitioner filed refund claims for the periods January 1977 to June 1978 and July 1978 to June 1979, arguing that the excise duty paid included non-deductible post-manufacturing expenses. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise initially rejected these claims, stating they were not made under protest and were based on a judgment not universally applicable. After a court direction, the Assistant Collector revisited the claims and upheld the petitioner's right to deductions for freight, octroi, and additional tax on sales tax but rejected claims for interest on cash credit and fixed deposits.
3. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:
The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which stipulates a six-month limitation period. The court noted that at the time of filing, Rule 11 was applicable, but both provisions had the same limitation period. The court emphasized that the petitioner had approached the court in 1980, and the delay was due to the pending proceedings and interim orders. The court treated the petition as one for enforcing the refund of excess excise duty paid under a mistake of law, which was discovered in November 1979.
4. Deductibility of Specific Expenses:
- Freight and Octroi: The Assistant Collector accepted these as deductible expenses, leading to refunds of Rs. 57,074.48 and Rs. 54,781.79 for the respective periods.
- Additional Tax on Sales Tax: Similarly, the Assistant Collector allowed deductions, resulting in refunds of Rs. 3,218.28 and Rs. 2,381.81 for the respective periods.
- Interest on Cash Credit and Bills of Exchange: The court rejected the claim for deducting interest on cash credit and bills of exchange, distinguishing it from the case of Jenson and Nicholson v. Union of India. The court found no similarity in the facts and concluded that such interest is not deductible from the wholesale price.
Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The petitioner was entitled to refunds for freight, octroi, and additional tax on sales tax but not for interest on bills of exchange. The court found no error in the Assistant Collector's order regarding the non-deductibility of interest on bills of exchange and upheld the view that the claims were not barred by limitation. There was no order as to costs.
-
1986 (7) TMI 102
Issues:
1. Validity of countervailing duty recovered by the respondents.
2. Applicability of exemption notifications under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act.
3. Levying of duty of excise in excess of specified rates.
4. Relief and refund of excess excise duty collected.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners contended that the countervailing duty recovered by the respondents was invalid due to an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act. The notification exempted specific articles from paying duty in excess of the prescribed rate. However, the court held that the exemption did not extend to additional duty or countervailing duty, as clarified in the notification itself. Thus, the petitioners' argument on this issue was rejected.
2. The petitioners argued that certain notifications under the Central Excise Act limited the respondents from levying excise duty above specified rates. Referring to these notifications, the court acknowledged that they applied to the import of High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (HDPE) based on previous judgments. Consequently, the court declared that the respondents should not have collected excise duty exceeding the specified rates and ordered a refund of the excess amount collected during a specific period.
3. In light of the above findings, the court ruled partially in favor of the petitioners, directing the respondents to calculate and refund the excess excise duty collected on the import of HDPE within a specified timeframe. The court also mentioned that no costs were to be awarded in this case and further noted the discharge of the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners.
This judgment clarifies the application of exemption notifications under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act concerning the levy of excise duty on imported goods, particularly HDPE, providing relief to the petitioners by ordering a refund of excess excise duty collected by the respondents.
-
1986 (7) TMI 101
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the liability of excise duty on extruded aluminium tubes, the claim for refund of excess duty paid, the period for which refund can be claimed, and the authority of the department to retain wrongfully collected amounts.
Liability of Excise Duty:
The petitioners, a company manufacturing tubes, were subject to excise duty on extruded aluminium tubes under Sub-item 27(e) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty was initially based on tariff value and later on the value of the tubes, including additional costs like painting, printing, and fitting charges.
Claim for Refund:
Upon discovering a judgment stating that certain costs should not be included in the assessable value for duty calculation, the petitioners filed a refund claim for the excess duty paid from January 1, 1974, to June 17, 1980. The authorities directed them to file a formal refund claim, which was not processed, leading to the petition seeking refund under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Period for Refund:
The department contended that refund could only be claimed for three years prior to the date of knowledge of the mistake of law. However, the court held that if duty was collected illegally, the refund could cover a longer period, citing precedents where refunds were granted beyond the three-year limit.
Authority to Retain Amounts:
The court emphasized that taxes should only be collected by authority of law, and if collected illegally, the department cannot refuse a refund based on the delay in claiming it. The court rejected the argument that completed assessments prevent refund, stating that illegal collections cannot be retained.
Decision and Directions:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the authorities to calculate and refund the excess duty paid from January 1, 1974, to June 17, 1980, within three months. No direction was given regarding the payment of interest, and no costs were awarded in the case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 100
Issues:
Challenge to the legality of confiscation of a ship under the Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of a fine in lieu of confiscation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the legality of the order confiscating a ship under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, but allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The ship was seized based on the belief that it was used for smuggling contraband goods. The Customs Authorities issued a show cause notice, and after considering objections, decided on confiscation under Section 115 of the Act.
2. The petitioners did not dispute the ship's use for smuggling but contested the amount of the fine imposed. The Proviso to Section 115(2) allows the owner to pay a fine not exceeding the market price of the smuggled goods. The total value of the contraband goods involved was Rs. 3,22,065, and the fine imposed was Rs. 3,70,000, which the petitioners argued was excessive.
3. The Customs Authorities argued that the unaccounted American Dollars found on the ship justified the higher fine. However, the court found that the show cause notice did not charge the Captain for the unaccounted amount, making it improper to consider it for imposing the fine. The court held that fines in such quasi-criminal proceedings must be based on specific charges, not assumptions.
4. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, modifying the order to allow redemption of the ship on payment of Rs. 3,22,065, the total value of the contraband goods involved. The ship had already left, but the Department could enforce a bank guarantee for the specified amount, discharging the rest of the guarantee.
5. The judgment concluded without any cost orders, settling the matter in favor of the petitioners and clarifying the correct application of fines in cases of confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1986 (7) TMI 99
Issues: Determination of entitlement to detention certificate period for imported goods; Delay in examination of goods by Customs Authorities; Request for detention certificate for all bills of entry filed; Failure of Customs Authorities to respond to petitioner's request; Department's inability to trace case papers; Allegation of bills of entries being taken back by petitioners.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of determining the period for which the petitioners are entitled to receive detention certificates from the Customs Authorities for their imported goods. The petitioners had secured a license for import of alloy steel scrap and filed three bills of entry in May 1980. However, the Customs Authorities delayed the examination of the goods until October 1980, causing the goods to be left unattended. The Appraiser Group's report stated that the goods were in serviceable condition, but an independent authority failed to re-examine the goods promptly despite reminders from the petitioners.
The petitioners requested detention certificates for all three bills of entry, covering the period from the arrival of goods in May 1980 to the clearance date in August 1981. The Customs Authorities issued detention certificates for two bills of entry but failed to respond to the request for the third bill of entry. The petitioners filed a petition in June 1982 seeking the issuance of the remaining detention certificate.
During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay in examination by the Customs Authorities should not penalize the petitioners with demurrage charges. The court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the detention certificate should cover the period from the arrival of goods in May 1980 until the clearance date in August 1981 for all three bills of entry.
The Department's Counsel sought an adjournment citing the unavailability of case papers, but the court denied the request due to previous adjournments for the same reason. The court criticized the Department's delay in handling the case and emphasized that the inability to trace papers cannot indefinitely postpone the proceedings.
The Department's submission that the goods were not examined due to the petitioners taking back the bills of entries was dismissed by the court, as it lacked supporting evidence. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing the Customs Authorities to issue the remaining detention certificates promptly for all bills of entry within four weeks from the judgment date, without imposing any costs on either party.
-
1986 (7) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of hardened or hydrogenated oils under Tariff Items Nos. 12, 13, or residuary Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the revisional authority's exercise of power under Section 36(2) of the Act.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer.
4. Consideration of the technical and trade classification of hydrogenated oil.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Hardened or Hydrogenated Oils:
The primary issue was whether hardened or hydrogenated oils with a melting point of 41^0C should be classified under Tariff Items Nos. 12, 13, or residuary Item No. 68. The petitioner, a company manufacturing vegetable products, argued that their product should fall under Tariff Item No. 12, which covers vegetable non-essential oils. Initially, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise classified the product under Tariff Item No. 13, which pertains to vegetable products meant for human consumption. However, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise later classified it under Tariff Item No. 12, noting that the product was not for human consumption but for industrial purposes. The revisional authority, however, classified the product under the residuary Item No. 68.
2. Validity of the Revisional Authority's Exercise of Power:
The petitioner contended that the revisional authority's action was barred by limitation under Section 36(2) of the Act, which prescribes a one-year period for initiating such proceedings. The argument was based on the third proviso to Section 36(2), which aligns with the six-month time limit specified in Section 11A for cases involving non-levy or short-levy of duty. However, the court clarified that the second proviso to Section 36(2) was applicable, allowing a one-year period for classification issues, thus making the revisional authority's action timely.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer:
The Appellate Collector relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd., which held that hardened vegetable oil does not cease to be vegetable oil by the process of hardening. The Supreme Court emphasized that the physical state change does not alter the fundamental nature of the oil. This precedent supported the classification of the product under Tariff Item No. 12. The revisional authority's dismissal of this precedent, citing its context under the Sales Tax Act, was found to be erroneous by the court.
4. Consideration of Technical and Trade Classification:
The revisional authority's decision in the Hindustan Lever case, which classified hydrogenated oil under Item No. 68, was based on the assumption that the trade recognized hardened oils as distinct from vegetable oils. However, this assumption lacked evidentiary support. The court noted that affidavits from experts and the decision of the CEGAT (Central Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal) supported the classification of hydrogenated oil under Tariff Item No. 12. The CEGAT's Full Bench had concluded that hydrogenated oil remains vegetable oil and should be classified under Item No. 12, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, setting aside the revisional authority's order and the subsequent show cause notice. The court directed the respondents to classify the product under Tariff Item No. 12 and refund the excess duty paid by the petitioners. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to established legal precedents and the necessity of evidentiary support for classification decisions. The respondents were given three months to complete the refund process, with no order as to costs.
-
1986 (7) TMI 97
Issues:
Interpretation of Tariff Item No. 27 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding liability for excise duty on aluminium circles used in the manufacture of topes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Tariff Item 27: The petitioners, a partnership firm, purchase duty paid aluminium sheets and process them to manufacture topes. The controversy arises regarding the classification of the circles cut from the aluminium sheets. The petitioners argue that the circles used in the manufacture of topes should not be subject to duty under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff. They claim that the circles are not removed from the factory or marketed, thus not falling under the purview of Tariff Item 27(b.
2. Claim for Exemption: The petitioners sought clarification from the Excise Authorities regarding the duty liability on the circles but did not receive a satisfactory response. Consequently, they filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to grant them exemption from following the procedure under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules while manufacturing aluminium topes.
3. Department's Position: The Assistant Collector of Central Excise contended that the aluminium circles manufactured by the petitioners fall under Tariff Item 27(b) and are sold in the market as circles. However, it was acknowledged that the circles are not removed from the factory or sold in the open market but used solely for the further process of manufacturing topes.
4. Judicial Analysis: The Court examined the process of manufacturing topes from aluminium sheets, emphasizing that the circles are an intermediate stage in the production process. The Court rejected the department's argument that the circles are liable for excise duty under Tariff Item 27(b. It referenced a Supreme Court decision highlighting that excise duty is payable on the end product, not on products manufactured at interim stages. The Court concluded that the circles, being part of the process of manufacturing topes, do not attract duty under Tariff Item 27(b.
5. Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting them the relief sought in the petition. The Court made the rule absolute in terms of the prayer, stating that the petitioners are entitled to exemption from the duty under Tariff Item 27(b. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the liability for excise duty on aluminium circles used in the manufacture of topes, emphasizing the distinction between intermediate products and the final end product for the purpose of duty assessment under the Central Excise Tariff.
-
1986 (7) TMI 96
Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of the order rejecting the application for refund of duty paid by the petitioners.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act regarding the limitation period for seeking a refund.
3. Consideration of whether duty paid under a mistake of law can be refunded.
4. Analysis of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision and its binding effect on subordinate authorities.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Pendse, J. of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay pertains to a petition challenging the legality of an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application for refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The petitioners had imported a Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and paid duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10. Subsequently, they discovered a decision by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) classifying the machine under Tariff Item No. 84.35 with a lower duty rate. The petitioners sought a refund of the excess duty paid, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on grounds of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act and on the merits of the assessment order. The court considered the argument that duty paid under a mistake of law should be refunded within three years of knowledge of the mistake, irrespective of the provisions of Section 27. The court held that the excessive duty paid under a mistake of law cannot be retained by the Department, emphasizing the need for a refund in such cases.
The court further analyzed the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision, which had classified an identical machine under a different tariff item, and held that this decision was final and binding on all subordinate authorities. The Assistant Collector's failure to consider this decision while rejecting the refund application was deemed erroneous by the court. The court concluded that the Assistant Collector's order was incorrect, and directed the Assistant Collector to determine the excess duty paid by the petitioners and refund it within three months. The court emphasized that the refund was warranted due to the mistake of law in the assessment, disregarding the argument that the petitioners should have appealed the initial assessment order under a different tariff item. The judgment did not award costs in this case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 95
Issues involved: Challenge to excise duty assessment on cloth manufacturing.
Summary:
The appellant, a sole proprietor of a trading company, challenged excise duty assessment on cloth manufactured in powerlooms. The High Court upheld the assessment, finding clear evidence that the appellant was the actual manufacturer of the cloth. The appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court, based on a certificate from the High Court, was dismissed as the Court found no merit in the appeal. The High Court's conclusion that the appellant was liable for excise duty was upheld by the Supreme Court, as there was no scope for interference with the factual findings.
The appellant's challenge was against the assessment of excise duty on cloth manufactured in powerlooms, which he purportedly purchased from powerloom owners. The authorities found that the appellant supplied yarn to the powerlooms, which then manufactured the cloth for him. The High Court concluded that the appellant was the actual manufacturer of the cloth based on clear evidence from his accounts.
The High Court's detailed consideration of the case led to the conclusion that the appellant had orchestrated transactions to make it appear as if he was purchasing cloth from powerloom owners, when in fact he was the one manufacturing the cloth using their powerlooms. The High Court's findings were based on substantial evidence from the department's records.
The Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's factual conclusion that the appellant was indeed the manufacturer of the cloth in question. Consequently, the appellant was held liable for excise duty on the cloth manufactured in the powerlooms. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the High Court's decision and ordering costs to be paid by the appellant.
-
1986 (7) TMI 94
Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Rules regarding the determination of the value of clearances for the benefit of an exemption notification under Notification No. 105/80.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 105/80 and Central Excise Rules
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing engineering goods, claimed exemption under Notification No. 105/80 for the first clearances of goods for home consumption up to a certain value. The dispute arose when the value of clearances exceeded the specified limit. The company contended that excise duty should be calculated based only on labor charges, excluding the cost of raw material. However, the Superintendent of Central Excise rejected this claim, stating that the cost of raw material, along with a margin of profit and labor charges, should be considered. The Division Bench's decision in a previous case supported the petitioner's claim, emphasizing that the assessable value should not include the cost of raw materials.
Issue 2: Judicial Precedents and Applicability
The judgment referred to a previous case where the Division Bench held that the value of manufactured goods, for the purpose of excise duty assessment, should include the value of raw materials. The Division Bench further clarified that processors of goods already subject to duty are required to pay excise duty on the value of the manufactured article, which includes the value of the raw material. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case, emphasizing that the manufacturer would receive credit for duty already paid, thus avoiding double taxation.
Issue 3: Resolution and Decision
Considering the conflicting interpretations and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, both parties agreed to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court in a pending appeal. The court set aside the previous orders related to the determination of clearance value under the exemption notification. It directed that for the purpose of the exemption, only the job work charges should be considered. However, after crossing the duty-free clearance limit, the assessable value would be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, including the value of raw materials for excess clearances. The petitioners were instructed to provide relevant information to the Excise authorities and to recalculate the exemption limit based on the Supreme Court's judgment if necessary.
In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition in accordance with the agreed terms, keeping the existing bank guarantee in place until the Supreme Court's decision. The petitioners were directed to cooperate with the Excise authorities and comply with the recalculated duty obligations based on the final Supreme Court ruling.
-
1986 (7) TMI 93
Issues:
- Interpretation of Exemption Notification dated December 4, 1979 for countervailing duty on imported goods.
- Compliance with conditions of Exemption Notification.
- Manufacturing source of HDPE and payment of excise duty.
Analysis:
The petitioners, a Partnership firm engaged in importing goods, including HDPE, claimed benefit under an Exemption Notification for countervailing duty. The Assistant Collector of Customs denied the benefit, leading to the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners relied on a Division Bench decision supporting their claim. The respondents argued that the Exemption Notification was conditional, and the petitioners had not complied with the conditions.
The Exemption Notification required the imported items to be manufactured from raw naphtha or related chemicals with paid excise duty. The respondents contended that there was no evidence that the HDPE imported was manufactured from raw naphtha. However, the petitioners stated that HDPE in India is solely manufactured by a specific company using excise duty paid raw naphtha. The respondents failed to refute this claim. The respondents also could not provide evidence that excise duty was not paid on the raw naphtha used for manufacturing HDPE. The Court found the respondents' arguments baseless and ruled in favor of the petitioners.
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the claimed reliefs. The petition succeeded, and the rule was made absolute with the discharge of the Bank guarantee. No costs were awarded in this case. The judgment highlighted the lack of evidence to support the denial of the benefit under the Exemption Notification and emphasized the petitioners' compliance with the conditions specified in the notification.
-
1986 (7) TMI 92
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 or Tariff Item No. 84.51/55 for the purpose of levying duty.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a company manufacturing microprocessor-based systems, imported designs and drawings on diskettes from a foreign supplier. The goods were classified under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 by the petitioner, seeking duty exemption. However, the Collector of Customs reclassified the goods under Tariff Item No. 84.51/55, leading to the petitioner paying duty under protest. Subsequent appeals to the Central Board of Excise and Customs resulted in dismissal, prompting the filing of the present petition challenging the classification.
The central question before the court was whether the diskettes containing designs and drawings should be classified under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 (related to plans and drawings for various purposes) or Tariff Item No. 84.51/55 (pertaining to automatic data processing machines and related parts). The petitioner argued that technological advancements have shifted the supply of designs from manuscript form to storage on diskettes, making them fall under the former tariff item exempt from duty.
The court analyzed the definitions and scope of both tariff items. It noted that Tariff Item No. 49.04/06 specifically covers plans and drawings for industrial, architectural, engineering, or similar purposes, exempting them from duty. In contrast, Tariff Item No. 84.51/55 relates to machinery and mechanical appliances, including automatic data processing machines. The court emphasized that diskettes are not machines or mechanical appliances but rather storage media, akin to cassettes in a video recorder, which do not qualify as parts or accessories of a machine. The court deemed the classification under Tariff Item No. 84.51/55 as erroneous and upheld the petitioner's contention that the diskettes should be classified under Tariff Item No. 49.04/06.
Consequently, the court allowed the petition, directing the refund of the duty paid by the petitioner within four weeks. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for interest and did not award costs in the case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 91
Issues:
1. Determination of assessable value of soaps manufactured by petitioner for another company.
2. Whether the price at which goods are supplied represents wholesale cash price.
3. Consideration of costs of outer folding corrugated boxes in assessable value.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the assessable value of soaps manufactured by the petitioner company for another entity. The agreement between the parties specified the terms of manufacture and sale of soaps, including the brand name "DETTOL" and the specifications set out in the agreement. The agreement allowed the other party to reject goods not meeting the specified standards, with costs of any damage to be borne by the petitioners.
2. The Assistant Collector issued a show-cause notice questioning the assessable value determination, suggesting it should be based on the price to an independent buyer rather than the agreed price between the parties. The Assistant Collector concluded that the agreed price did not represent the wholesale cash price and did not meet the conditions of normal price under Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
3. The petitioner argued that the agreement was at arm's length and the goods were manufactured by them, not on behalf of the other party. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the petitioner contended that the price at which goods were supplied represented the wholesale cash price and should be accepted as the assessable value for excise duty purposes. Additionally, the petitioner sought deduction of costs of outer folding corrugated boxes from the assessable value, relying on another Supreme Court decision regarding similar deductions for packaging costs.
4. The court agreed with the petitioner's arguments, finding that the goods were manufactured by the petitioner and the agreed price represented the wholesale cash price. The court also held that the costs of outer folding corrugated boxes should be deducted from the assessable value, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case involving packaging costs for a different product.
5. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and discharging the bank guarantee furnished. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1986 (7) TMI 90
Whether glass mirrors fall under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) or Tariff Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act?
Held that:- Upon the tests and having regard to the foregoing considerations which have appealed to us when considering the proper classification of glass mirrors, we have no hesitation in holding that the screens cannot be described as "glass or glasswares" under Tariff Item No. 23A(4). No one dealing in or using the screens would consider them as "glass or glassware". They can only be considered as motor vehicle parts. Even if we assume that they could fall under Tariff Item No. 23A(4) relating to 'glass and glassware' also inasmuch as Tariff Item No. 34A is a special entry and Tariff Item No. 23A(4) is a general entry, the special must exclude the general and therefore also it is Tariff Item No. 34A which prevails and is attracted.
It is clear, however, that after the amendment of Tariff Item No. 34A by the Finance Act, 1979 the scope of that Tariff Item is restricted to the 15 commodities specified therein. That being so the screens manufactured by the petitioner merit classification in the residuary Tariff Item No. 68.
In the result Appeal is allowed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 89
Whether the expression " impossible " also includes the possibility of including something which is not property as yet of the deceased to pass on the death of the deceased?
Held that:- We accept the reasoning of the High Court that if the adoption was not valid as contended for by the Revenue, then Muthiah continued to be a member of the natural family and, as such, his share in the joint family would have passed on the death of the deceased. In this background, it is, however, difficult to appreciate the stand of the Revenue that the adoption was valid but no effect could be given to the terms of the muri. The muri, according to the Revenue, stood by itself. The High Court found it not possible to accept this argument. We are of the same view. The agreement properly read could not be taken as a post-adoption agreement. In that view of the matter, certain factual aspects were urged before the High Court for contending that the accountable person was not free to urge that there was no valid adoption and Muthiah continued to be a member of the natural family. We do not find much merit in such contentions and these need not be dealt with. These have been dealt with by the High Court and we accept them. Not much serious argument in support of the appeal on this aspect by the Revenue was advanced before us. Appeal is answered by saying that amount of ₹ 2 lakhs, if assessable, would have been assessed as a separate estate and the share of the deceased in the property of the joint family at the time of death was one-third and not one-half. In the premises, this appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 88
Whether Capital reserve, Stocks and Stores reserves, Bad and Doubtful Debts reserves, Obsolescence reserve, Loans and Insurance reserve, Investment reserve, and Forfeited Moneys were to be included in the computation of capital according to the provisions in the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- It may be mentioned that where the liability has actually arisen or is anticipated legitimately by the assessee though the quantum of the liability has not been determined, a fund to meet such present liability cannot be treated as It reserves ". A fund, however, created for payment of a liability which had not already arisen or fallen due but is only a provision with regard to the sum that might become liable to be paid is " other reserves " within the meaning of rule I of the Second Schedule and should be taken into account in computing the capital of the company for the purpose of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the decision of the High Court was right in treating it as reserve.
-
1986 (7) TMI 87
Whether (a) investment reserve, (b) rehabilitation reserve, and (c) forfeited dividend reserve were includible in the capital computation of the company in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964? ?
Held that:- The distinction between " provision " and go reserve " is that while " provision " is a charge on profits which are taken into account in the gross receipts of the profit and loss account, If reserve " is an appropriation of profit to provide for the asset which it represented.
Keeping these tests and the facts of these appeals in mind, we must hold that the conclusion of the High Court holding that the investment reserve and rehabilitation reserve were reserves and were entitled to be treated as such under the relevant Act is right. But on the facts of the case, the High Court was not right in holding that the forfeited dividend reserve was a reserve and question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative. It should have followed in this respect its previous decision in respect of " Forfeited Dividend reserve " in CIT v. British India Corporation [1972 (7) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD High Court]. The appeal, therefore, fails except on the point of " Forfeited Dividend reserve. "
-
1986 (7) TMI 86
Whether the provision for additional cane price amounting to ₹ 8,16,000 was rightly treated as a 'reserve' forming part of the assessee's capital for the purposes of assessment to super profits tax for the year under consideration ?
Held that:- In the present case, when the evidence clearly discloses that there was no liability at all on the assessee requiring it to set apart a sum as charge against its profits and there was never any intention to make payments to the cane growers nor was any payment ever made, but, on the contrary, the assessee reversed the entries in a subsequent year in its books, it is apparent that the amount cannot be described as a " provision ". It can only be described as a " reserve ". It was part of the capital which fell for computation under rule I of the Second Schedule. Appeal dismissed.
-
1986 (7) TMI 85
Whether the sum of ₹ 33,747.09 credited in the relevant previous year could be assessed to tax for the year 1964-65?
Held that:- The view taken by the High Court in the case before us is right. The remission cannot, in our opinion, be considered as amounting to receipt of agricultural income. What was allowed to be deducted from the total agricultural income of the assesses was interest pursuant to section 5 of the Act. It was a deduction made permissible by the Act. To be regarded as taxable in the hands of the assesses, the amount which was the subject of remission must be capable of being described as agricultural income. As the High Court has observed in the present case " what was returned to the assessee has nothing to do with the activities of the assessee, it does not arise from business nor does it arise from agricultural operations when the assessee is an agriculturist "
In regard to sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, that it has been replaced by an even wider provision as sub-section (1) of section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No provision of that nature finds place in the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
