Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 157 Records
-
1979 (9) TMI 78
Penalty should not be imposed when goods are exempted from duty ... ... ... ... ..... ispute and consequential changes in the classification of the petitioner s product under the Central Excise Tariff, some of the items being first held dutiable and then non-dutiable. The dispute necessitated dismantling of the bonded store room. Furthermore it is observed that the petitioner s product is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty and no mala fides can be imputed for contraventions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Regarding improper maintenance of the RG 1 the petitioner has admitted the lapse. 4. In view of the above Govternment of India hold that penalties imposed under Rules 9(2), 210 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, were not justified and should therefore be remitted. Penalty imposed under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is, however, sustained. However, in the circumstances of the case fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to a nominal amount of Rs. 250/-. Apart from the above modifications the revision application is rejected.
-
1979 (9) TMI 77
Manufacture - Change in physical form does not amount to manufacture - Synthetic dye stuff - Taxing provision - Burden of proof on the department
-
1979 (9) TMI 76
Carbon Black ... ... ... ... ..... lack is more appropriately classifiable as non-organic pigments only. Since only organic pigments falls within the Item 14-I(4a), the goods manufactured by the petitioners would not be covered by that tariff entry. The correct classification would accordingly be under Item 14-I(5) of the Central Excise Tariff during the relevant period. 3. The result is that the revision application succeeds and is allowed with consequential benefits to the petitioners.
-
1979 (9) TMI 75
... ... ... ... ..... he petitioners had themselves brought these to the notice of the department on their own initiative. Further more, since -the excisable goods manufactured by tile petitioners are in the exempted sector no loss of revenue is involved. In the circumstances, Govt. of India accept the petitioners bona fides in the matter and direct that the personal penalty imposed on the petitioner be remitted. 3. The order-in-appeal is accordingly set aside and the revision application is allowed.
-
1979 (9) TMI 74
Valuation - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... contrary to the principles settled by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. I am not inclined to deprive the petitioners of relief in these proceedings. The last submission of Mr. Dalal that the applications for refund filed by the petitioners need not be decided in these proceedings is correct and in fact, the petitioners have not claimed any relief in respect of these refund applications in the present petition. The applications for refund filed by the petitioners and which will be filed hereafter should be disposed of in the light of the provisions of the law in existence. 6. In the circumstance, the petition succeeds and the two impugned orders dated January 1, 1975 and April 1, 1975 annexed as Exhibits H and L and the two detention memos dated July 16, 1975 and July 17, 1975 annexed as Exhibits O and P are quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners should stand discharged.
-
1979 (9) TMI 73
Demurrage charges - Customs authorities are bound to issue detention certificate - Detention certificate - Writ of mandamus - Detention order - Admissibility
-
1979 (9) TMI 72
Penalty - Shortage in landed cargo - Liability of person in-charge of vessel - Writ jurisdiction
-
1979 (9) TMI 71
Re-export of goods - Computation of time limit ... ... ... ... ..... so the total period is not one year but six months plus the extended period and it is only in regard to the extension of the period that limitation has been imposed of one year. The expression within such extended period not exceeding one year clearly provides that the one year limit is with reference to the extended period and not to the total period including the extended period within which the goods must be exported from the date of import. In any case, even if the other interpretation taken by the authorities below were possible (though Government do not think so) the interpretation favourable to the petitioners has necessarily to be adopted in such situations. In the circumstances, Government observe that the re-export which took place on 22-12-1971 was within the extended period of one year upto which the Collector could condone. Government accordingly condone the delay and allow the revision application. Consequential relief is granted to the petitioners accordingly.
-
1979 (9) TMI 70
Whetehr the goods in question were not liable to duty under the head No. 1902.10 until February 28, 1987, and the said goods had been made dutiable only by the Finance Bill, 1987-88, with effect from March 1, 1987?
Held that:- As the time of manufacture of the goods in question, the goods were excisable goods and, in view of rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, though the taxable event is the manufacture and production, the payment of duty is related to and postponed to the date of removal of the articles from the manufactory.
It is well-settled by the scheme of the Act as clarified by several decisions that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later stage for administrative convenience. The scheme of the said Act read with the relevant rules framed under the Act, particularly rule 9A of the said rules, reveals that the taxable event is the fact of manufacture or production of an excisable article and the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory - against assessee.
-
1979 (9) TMI 69
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act did apply to the gifts of ₹ 1,00,000 and of ₹ 50,000 made by the deceased to his son and wife respectively ?
Held that:- In the instant case it is clear that the ratio of the decisions of this court in Gounder's case [1973 (2) TMI 52 - SUPREME Court] is squarely applicable and the Tribunal as well as the High Court was right in holding that no estate duty could be charged in respect of the two sums of money, viz., ₹ 1,00,000 and ₹ 50,000.
-
1979 (9) TMI 68
Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and the disputed amount is a revenue receipt. Bearing in mind the principles laid down by their Lordships in the aforesaid authorities and the finding arrived at by the Tribunal, all that can be said against the assessee is that the explanation given by it for the discrepancy in the stock reported to the bank and that recorded in the books of account, is not satisfactory. But that cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the levy of penalty cannot be justified. We are, therefore, of opinion, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in quashing the penalty imposed upon the assessee under s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, but make no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 67
Appeal To AAC, Assessment Order, Best Judgment Assessment, Failure To File Return, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Registered Firm
-
1979 (9) TMI 66
Income Tax Act, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ssessment under section 141A), if any, made for the immediately following assessment year under this Act......... This provision treats a deduction of tax at source as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made. Under the trust deed the bank was bound to pay the interest accruing on the securities to the assessee, who was the beneficiary. On the amount of interest accruing on these securities deduction of tax is made and paid to the Central Govt. As the entire interest amount had to be given to the assessee, the interest accruing in the circumstances could be treated as income of the assessee for purposes of s. 199. Inasmuch as tax had been deducted and paid, the assessee was entitled to credit for the tax so deducted. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1979 (9) TMI 65
Individual Partner, Minor Child, Partner As Karta, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... s. 64(1)(i) and (ii), the income of the spouse or a minor child of such individual is to be clubbed with the income of the assessee only if he is a partner as an individual in a firm. If such an individual represents a HUF as its karta and the income in his hands goes to the HUF, then for the purposes of s. 64(1)(i) and (ii), it cannot be held that it is the income of an individual. If the contention of the revenue is correct, then there can be no income from the partnership to the HUF whose karta as such is the partner thereof. This position, as such, is not tenable and cannot be accepted. In the present case it has been found as a fact that the assessee is only representing the HUF in the firm, M/s. Vinod Trading Co., at present. In this view of the matter, we find that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is correct and the answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 64
Delay In Filing Return, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... it result in the payment of penalty. The payment of double penalty is out of question because penal interest is not penalty at all. It is only by way of compensation and since penalty is not being imposed twice over there is no question of double jeopardy. The provisions of clause (iii)(a) of the proviso to section 139(1) are not invalid on the ground of double jeopardy. Similarly, the vires of these provisions were upheld by the Madras High Court in Mahendrakumar Ishwarlal and Co. v. Union of India 1973 91 ITR 101 by the Gauhati High Court in Ganesh Das Sreeram v. ITO 1974 93 ITR 19 and by the Madras High Court in Mahendrakumar Iswarlal and Co. v. Union of India 1974 94 ITR 65. No other point has been urged before us. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the provisions of Expln. 2 to sub-s. (8) of s. 139 of the Act do not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality and we, therefore, dismiss this writ petition. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 63
Appellate Authority, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... . 1976 105 ITR 212 (SC), Bankipur Club Ltd. v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 831 (SC), Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents Ltd. 1975 101 ITR 441 (Guj), CIT v. Coral Mills Workers Co-operative Stores Ltd. 1977 106 ITR 868 (Mad) and ITO v. Panama P. Ltd. 1974 97 ITR 210 (Cal). In view of what has been discussed above, we are not inclined to agree with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Our answers to the two questions referred, therefore, are that the appellate order made in the W.T. assessment for the immediately preceding year constituted an information for reopening the G.T. assessment for the year 1970-71 under s. 16(1)(b) of the Act and the Appellate Tribunal erred in quashing the reassessment. Question No. 1 is thus answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which we assess at Rs. 200 and counsel s fee in the like amount.
-
1979 (9) TMI 62
Export Incentive Scheme, Export Promotion, Import Entitlements, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... uantity of goods exported is a revenue receipt, for it is an additional payment received for the goods sold by way of export. Thus, the fact that s. 28(iv) was not on the statute book during the assessment year in question, would not take the payment outside the purview of the words profits and gains of business which are taxable under s. 28. It must, therefore, be held that the amount of Rs. 2,33,662 received by the assessee was the assessee s income. We, accordingly, answer the questions as under Question No. 1.--In the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Question No. 2.--In the affirmative, in favour of the department and, against the assessee. Question No. 3.--In the negative (sic), in favour of the department and against the assessee. Question No. 4.--In the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
-
1979 (9) TMI 61
Penalty For Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... uently, my answer to the question, which has been referred for the opinion of this court, would be in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee would be entitled to his costs from the revenue. S. S. SANDHAWALIA C.J.--I have had the privilege of perusing the lucid judgments recorded by my learned brothers, D. S. Tewatia and G. C. Mittal JJ. I agree entirely with G. C. Mittal J. and have nothing to add. ORDER OF THE COURT In accordance with the majority view, it is held that the provisions of s. 271(1)(iii) of the Act would be applicable in this case as it existed (before its amendment which came into force with effect from 1st April, 1968) at the time of the filing of the first return dated the 21st April, 1967. Consequently, the answer to the question referred for the opinion of this court is rendered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee would also be entitled to his costs.
-
1979 (9) TMI 60
Application For Rectification, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings, Undisclosed Income
-
1979 (9) TMI 59
A Firm, Family Property, Income Of HUF ... ... ... ... ..... of determining rights to property and safeguarding such rights of the son. The doctrine in their Lordships view did not fit in with the scheme of the I. T. Act. As no question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether a HUF comes into existence on marriage, we cannot read this decision as laying down the proposition that a HUF comes into existence only on the birth of a son. As noticed earlier, the matter appears to be fairly covered by the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in C. Krishna Prasad s case 1974 97 ITR 493. As the matter appears to be concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court already referred to, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by referring to decisions of other High Courts cited by counsel for the assessee. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is also assessed at the same figure.
|