|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... fect that sales tax liability arising during the year has already been allowed as a deduction by the ITO in computing the taxable profits. The ld. counsel for the assessee has not placed any material before us to rebut that specific finding by the Commissioner(A). 6. In regard to the second contention raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee, we hold that while the aforesaid sum of Rs. 7520 has been correctly included in computing the taxable profits of the assessee for the Samvat Year 2027, we direct that the aforesaid amount which has also been included in computing the taxable profits for the Samvat Year 2030 should be deleted from the income of that year. This would remove the grievance of the assessee that the same amount has been subjected to double taxation. 7. We, therefore, reject both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee firm and confirm the order of the Commissioner (A) on these points. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 107 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... uld have been converted into cash and the tax paid. We are sure that if the amounts represented by the sundry debts could have been realised the Department would definitely have taken steps for the realisation of the tax from the debtors. The tax payable as per the assessment order comes to Rs. 4,19,000. 5. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was not in a position when he filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) to pay the tax on the returned income. We, therefore, hold that there was good and sufficient reason for exempting the assessee from complying with the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of s. 249 of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with that provision. We, therefore, set, aside his order and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 106 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... uld have been converted into cash and the tax paid. We are sure that if the amounts represented by the sundry debts could have been realised the Department would definitely have taken steps for the realisation of the tax from the debtors. The tax payable as per the assessment order comes to Rs. 4,19,000. 5. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the assessee was not in a position when he filed the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) to pay the tax on the returned income. We, therefore, hold that there was good and sufficient reason for exempting the assessee from complying with the provisions of cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of s. 249 of the Act. The CIT (Appeals) was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the appeal for non-compliance with that provision. We, therefore, set, aside his order and direct to dispose of the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 105 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... nce bills. The payment is, therefore, clearly for financial assistance in the general running of the business and has nothing to do specifically in connection with the purchase of machinery as such. For the Department reference made to the decisions in case of Challapalli Sugar Ltd (2) in case of Tensile Steel Ltd (3) and in case of Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd (4). In these cases no claim for allowance of similar expenditure under revenue account was made. On the contrary the assessee claimed that the expenses on account of guarantee commission should only be added to the cost of the machinery for the purpose of granting depreciation etc. This was accepted by the Court. There is also the further point that in the present case the business was a running concern and only as part of its day-to-day activity it had intended for purchase of extra frames. The sum of Rs. 7,194 is, therefore, to be clearly allowed as revenue expenditure. 5. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... nce bills. The payment is, therefore, clearly for financial assistance in the general running of the business and has nothing to do specifically in connection with the purchase of machinery as such. For the Department reference made to the decisions in case of Challapalli Sugar Ltd (2) in case of Tensile Steel Ltd (3) and in case of Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Ltd (4). In these cases no claim for allowance of similar expenditure under revenue account was made. On the contrary the assessee claimed that the expenses on account of guarantee commission should only be added to the cost of the machinery for the purpose of granting depreciation etc. This was accepted by the Court. There is also the further point that in the present case the business was a running concern and only as part of its day-to-day activity it had intended for purchase of extra frames. The sum of Rs. 7,194 is, therefore, to be clearly allowed as revenue expenditure. 5. The appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 103 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Natural justice - Customs - Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... hicle that is subject to deterioration and decay is pending for well over five years. In this view, it is necessary to direct the Collector to complete the proceedings with utmost expedition in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order or writ of this Court. 25. In the light of my above discussion, I quash the order dated 31-12-1977 of the Collector in so far as it relates to the confiscation of motor vehicle No. MEL 4681 and direct him to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners, in particular, petitioner No. 2 and dispose of the matter in accordance with law with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order or writ of this Court. 26. Rule issued is made absolute. 27. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. 28. Let the Order/Writ be sent to respondent No. 1 within a week from this day.
-
1980 (9) TMI 102 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Yarn - Classification of mixed items - Refund - Limitation - Duty paid under mistake of law ... ... ... ... ..... re payment is made under a mistake of law mistake becomes known to the party only when a Court makes a declaration as to the invalidity of the law though a party could with reasonable diligence discovered a mistake of fact even before a Court makes a pronouncement. It is seldom that a person can even with a reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment adjudging the validity of law is passed. The very fact that the trade notification states that doubts have been expressed that would show that the public and the people of commerce were in doubt regarding the same. 20. Finding these difficulties and ambiguity the legislature thought it fit to introduce 18E to cover blended products including the products manufactured by the petitioner. Before the introduction of 18E, I am of the view that, under the circumstances as stated earlier, the respondents were not entitled to levy excise duty and collect the same from the petitioner. Hence I make the Rule absolute.
-
1980 (9) TMI 101 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Forwarding and loading charge are includible in assessable value ... ... ... ... ..... a lower authority was in no way binding on the Government and Government did not have also before them the details of the facts and circumstances in which that order was passed. This cannot, therefore, help them. As regards the petitioners grievance that the Asstt. Collector by his order dated 1-11-75 covered the period even beyond the period which was covered by the show cause notice, the Government observe that the issue involved was whether the loading/forwarding charges were to be included in the assessable price and there was nothing wrong on the part of the Asstt. Collector to hold after hearing them that the addition of Rs. 1.50 per M. Ton would be made to the assessable value which had been earlier approved provisionally by the Range Officer. In view of the above findings, the Government do not find any reason to interfere with the Appellate Collector s order which is correct in law and based on the facts of the case. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (9) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Unauthorised powerlooms - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... herefore the duty liability in respect of all the unauthorised powerlooms have been correctly fastened on them. Government further observe that Shri Dhanaraj, partner of the petitioner-firm had clearly admitted in his statements dated 28-10-1975 and 20-11-1975 that all the 92 powerlooms, made up of authorised end unauthorised, each numbering 46 were run by the petitioner-firm M/s. Veeraraj Textiles. Government is also in agreement with the Board s finding that the petitioner-firm were the owners of all the powerlooms and the fact that some partners are assessed separately for the purposes of income-tax will not alter the position under the Central Excise law. The Board s order is sustainable in law. However having regard to all the circumstances of the case, Government reduce the penalty imposed on the petitioner-firm to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). In all other respects, the order-in-appeal is confirmed and the revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Valuation - Determination of assessable value - Goods of like kind and quality - Interpretation - Mistake of law - Appeal not filed against order
-
1980 (9) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Demand - Differential cess - Produce Cess Act - Scope - Collector - Appointment of - Short levy - Illegal cess
-
1980 (9) TMI 97 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Aerated Waters - Mistake of law - Duty paid under - Refunds - Criteria for ... ... ... ... ..... der that there is no justification in discriminating against the petitioners in this case, particularly the batch from which the base material had been obtained from M/s Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. was the same as the batch from which similar material was supplied to the other franchise holders in Andhra Pradesh. In view of the foregoing discussions Government agree with the petitioners stand that their earlier declaration about their products containing blended flavouring concentrates was a case of mistake of law. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, provides for rectification of such an error within the stipulated time-limit of one year fixed therein even if it were not a case of mistake of law. The petitioners are, therefore, rightly eligible for refund of duties paid in excess and up to a period of one year prior to the date of filing the refund claim and Government direct this relief be allowed to the petitioners. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (9) TMI 96 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cellulosic spun yarn and cotton yarn - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... a) of the second proviso to Notification No. 226 of 1977, namely, at the rates laid down in Notification No. 226 of 1977 and at no other rate. The respondents are directed to work out the excise duty payable by the petitioner in the light of this judgment and to refund the excess which they have paid over that amount to the respondents. The amount to be worked out within eight weeks from to-day and the amount due to the petitioner to be paid within two weeks thereafter. Rule is made absolute to that extent. The respondents will pay the costs of this petition to the petitioner. 21. At this stage, Mr. Mehta for the respondents applies for leave under Article 133(1) to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion, no substantial question of law of general importance which is needed to be decided by the Supreme Court arises in this case. All that has been done is to apply the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case before us and hence this application is rejected.
-
1980 (9) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Show Cause Notice - Extension of period without being heard - Validity - Explanation if unsatistactory - Finding of fact
-
1980 (9) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Countervailing duty - Nature and scope - Interpretation - Revision - Personal hearing not necessary - Appeal to Supreme Court
-
1980 (9) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Domestic Electrical appliance - Classification - Cirteria for - Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... civil application No. 1315 of 1975 was referred to by the petitioner in the written statement filed by it before the first respondent. 5. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the flour grinding mills manufactured by the petitioner and in respect of which classification list was submitted by the petitioner were not covered by Item No. 33-C of the First Schedule to the Act and the order passed by the first responder is bad in law. 6. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 8-2-1977 and it is declared that the domestic flour mills manufactured by the petitioner do not attract duty under tariff item No. 33-C of the First Schedule to the Act. A writ of mandamus shall also issue directing the respondents to desist or forbear from recovering excise duty on domestic flour mills manufactured by the petitioner. The rule is mad absolute and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner cost of this petition.
-
1980 (9) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Insurance premium paid for breakage in transit ... ... ... ... ..... e find substance in Mr. Chandrashekheran s contention that the allowance of this loss will really result in the exclusion from the excisable value the manufacturing cost of a part of the excisable goods. The goods attract excise duty at the point of manufacture and removal section 3, Rule 9 and 49) their loss to the assessee subsequently is immaterial from the point of view of excise duty. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that plausible as the assessee s claim may sound, the claim of the assessee will really result in the reduction from the sale price a portion of the element of the assessee s manufacturing cost included in it, which is the subject matter of levy. This loss cannot be approximated to insurance premium paid for breakage in transit for purposes of sale which will clearly be a post-manufacturing expense. 17. We, therefore, reject the contentions of the petitioner, discharge the rule and dismiss the writ petition. We, however, make no orders as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
L.P. Biscuit material is liable to countervailing duty on importation - Classification - Promissory estoppel - Scope
-
1980 (9) TMI 90 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Palmolein is not a sort of palm oil - Taxing statute - Canons of interpretation - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... iable on Palmolein which cannot be treated as falling in the exempted category of V.N.E. oils under item 12 of C.E.T. That palmolein is a product distinct from palm oil would be evident from the fact that invoices, bills of entry and other shipping documents relating to the goods described the same as palmolein and not palm oil imports of which are also known to have taken place in India. These two items can clearly be distinguished with reference to their name, character, use and the fact that they are marketed under different names and their prices are quoted separately under different description. As such palmolein would not get the benefit of Notification No. 150/64 which is available for palm oil and palm oil alone. 19. The Government, therefore, set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and restore the orders of the original authority. The additional duty on the goods, if already refunded to the importers, should be realised forthwith from them in pursuance of this order.
-
1980 (9) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Finance Bill - Imposition of duty and subsequent withdrawal - Duty paid provisionally is liable to refund
............
|
