|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 2075 Records
-
1980 (12) TMI 58 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Extruded shapes and sections ... ... ... ... ..... me of consumption of the slugs. Even the Courts have gone by the concept of actual cost of production and manufacturing profit for determining the assessable value under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In that view of the matter, the Government observe that the order of the Supdt. was legal and correct and the Government therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. 8. As regards the question as to whether the price of slugs should be reduced by the amount of duty paid on the same in respect of which proforma credit has been taken while computing the cost of extruded shapes and sections, the Government observe that while arriving at the assessable value of the finished product, credit in respect of duty paid material/components availing the facility provided under Rule 56A will have to be deducted. Accordingly, the Government allow the revision application on this point. 9. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 57 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Polyurethane Foam - Classification list wrongly filed - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... it was not proper for the Appellate Collector to allow the appeal in full without considering whether the refund claim was within time etc. 6. Government accordingly uphold the Appellate order regarding classification of the impugned goods sold in standard sizes under Tariff Item I5A(3). Government observe that this fact would not be altered even if the assessee had originally filed a classification list showing them to be classifiable under Item 15A(4) because such a declaration could be no estoppel to the petitioners subsequently making their claim for the benefit of Notification No. 198/76 on the basis of correct classification under Item 15A(3), Central Excise Tariff. However having regard to the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs Government direct that before granting the refund claimed the Assistant Collector shall examine whether the refund claim is otherwise in order from the point of view of limitation. The review proceedings are disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 56 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Aluminium flattened wire ... ... ... ... ..... s. . They have submitted that according to the Indian Standard Specification 5047 (Pt. I) 1969 strip is a Cold-rolled product of rectangular section, supplied in coil with slit edges, over 0.14 mm thick but not exceeding 5 mm in thickness. They have submitted that the lower authorities have mainly gone by the dimension of the impugned goods in holding that the goods are strips. While conceding that the dimension of the impugned goods do satisfy the specification in the B Specification referred to above, they contend that their production is not a rolled product and the edges are not slitted but flattened, and thus these two requirements of the product are not satisfied by the impugned goods and hence they would fall outside the purview of the term strips . 4. Government find considerable force in the submissions of the petitioners. There is no evidence on record to contradict these submissions. Government accordingly accept the submissions and allow the revision application.
-
1980 (12) TMI 55 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Export goods diversion for home consumption ... ... ... ... ..... ovides for payment of Central Excise duty on goods diverted for home consumption after previously being cleared under bond for export and that the rate of duty for such purposes is to be arrived at under the provisions of Rule 9A(3) of the said rule which stipulates that the rate of duty in force is the effective rate on the date of payment of such duty. In the circumstances, the second demand for differential duty raised by the proper officer is correct in law the legal position are thus being quite clear and unambiguous whatever be the circumstances lead which delay in the payment of duty. More the responsibility for payment of duty being on the petitioners, in terms of the bond executed by them they cannot legitimately take shelter behind the delay in issue of the demand by the proper officer of Central Excise in support of their case. 5. In view of the above, Government find no reason to interfere with the order-in-appeal. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (12) TMI 54 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - Assessment of goods on invoice value - Appeal - Rejection of on technical ground ... ... ... ... ..... 20/75 i.e. on invoice value of the goods, it is the value exclusive of freight and insurance as shown in the invoices which ought to form the assessable value of the goods. 6. Government observe that the ratio of this order is applicable to the present case. Government further consider that the rejection of petitioner s appeal by the Appellate Collector on the mere technical ground that demand had not been honoured under Rule 173-I(2) of Central Excise Rules before filing the appeal was not justified more so when the Appellate Collector did not give the petitioner any opportunity to comply with the requirements of aforesaid rule 173-I(2) before deciding the appeal. Government are further of the view that it was a fit case where the Appellate Collector should have relaxed the provisions of rule 173-I(2) for deciding the appeal on its merits. 7. In view of the above, Government of India set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application with consequential relief.
-
1980 (12) TMI 53 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Valuation - Packing ... ... ... ... ..... ore, excludible from the assessable value of such an excisable product. It has been held that it cannot be said that the manufacturer of Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil is incomplete until it is placed in tin-containers and therefore, packing of Vegetable Oil is not an integral part of its manufacture. All these decisions go to show that even packaging and transportation cost after manufacture of the bottles are not incidental or ancillary to the process of manufacture of bottles or incidental to the manufacturing activity. It is in fact post-manufacturing activity and has got nothing to do with the manufacturing cost of manufacturing profit. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the show cause notice is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the order being Annexure K and restrain the respondents from taking any steps in pursuance thereof. The rules are accordingly made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute no costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transhippers whether exempt from payment of duty - Transhippers are vessels - Imports of spares for transhippers
-
1980 (12) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Plastic bangles - Liability to duty - Interpretation - Monomer ... ... ... ... ..... rated process of manufacturing nylon yarn did not fall within Tariff Item 15A because they were not commercially known as plastics or resins. 13. In the result, we allow both the petitions and quash the impugned orders and notices. Rule is made absolute with costs in each of the two petitions. 14. Mr. H.M. Mehta applies for a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution to enable the respondents to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court. We have interpreted Tariff Item 15A(2) read with Explanation I for the first time. There is no decision of the Supreme Court which governs the field. The question which we have decided is a question of all India importance. We, therefore, think that this is a fit case for the Supreme Court to decide. Accordingly, we grant the certificate of fitness under Article 133(1) of the Constitution to the respondents in each of the two petitions in order to enable them to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court.
-
1980 (12) TMI 50 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Firms - Manufacture - Job work - Ambit and scope - Branding of goods ... ... ... ... ..... re by the petitioners after 28-2-1969, that on that date they were lying with the petitioners in the form of chemical fertilisers fully manufactured and that no excise duty was leviable in respect thereof. The same principles are applicable to the facts of this case. Admittedly, the articles of jewellery and silverware at the time they are received by the petitioner from outside, are in a manufactured state. The petitioner affixes its seal to the said articles only for the purpose of identifying and enhancing the goodwill of the product. In the circumstances, the process of stamping the jewellery and silverware with the seal of the petitioner cannot be said to be incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product. I therefore hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay excise duty on these items of jewellery and silverware. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed the orders of the respondents are quashed but under the circumstances without costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Classification - Affidavits in evidence - Validity - Customs - Animal compound feed - Classification
-
1980 (12) TMI 48 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Valuation - Wholesale cash price - Determination of - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... his Court that selling cost and selling profit should be excluded from the first wholesale cash price for the purpose of levy of excise duty, in none of these decisions any attempt has been made to lay down what the selling profit is in the first wholesale cash price, its proportion in the entire profit and how to determine the same. It has been already pointed out by us that there is no question of selling cost or selling profit in the first wholesale cash price. For all this we are unable to agree to the view expressed in the above Bench decision of this Court in East Anglia Plastics (India) Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. As the view taken by us is contrary to that expressed in the above Bench decision the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. 24. In the circumstances, we refer the appeal and the cross-objection to a Full Bench to be constituted by the learned Chief Justice, under Rule 1 of Chapter XXXI-A of the Original Side Rules of this Court.
-
1980 (12) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Price-list finalised without prior notice is Violation of natural justice - Constitution - Alternative remedy
-
1980 (12) TMI 46 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Torches made of plastics ... ... ... ... ..... ic names such as buckets, baskets, etc. but these are not called by the buyers and sellers as articles made of plastic although these are made entirely of plastic. They have accordingly contended that the goods in question are assessable under Tariff Item 15A (2) and not under Central Excise Tariff Item 68. Government of India observe that Central Excise Item 15A(2) does not cover articles like torches as indicated by the illustration after the word including . In view of that, petitioner s plea that the goods involved are classifiable under the said tariff item is not tenable. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (12) TMI 45 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... just and proper to hold that the order of the Dy. Commr. dated March 31, 1978, in so far as it relates to the assessments for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69, cannot be sustained on account of the long and unjustifiable delay between the completion of the assessments and the passing of the revisional order, without affecting its validity in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1969-70. In the result, we answer the question in so far as it relates to the assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and in so far as it relates to the assessment year 1969-70 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of the judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Central Zone, Ernakulam.
-
1980 (12) TMI 44 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... od not exceeding 180 days mentioning the Expln. 1(iv) is mandatory. This period cannot be extended by any device. Section 153, by itself, does not support the assessee s contention. If more than one draft order is permissible under s. 144B, s. 153 will not stand in the way if the two periods (normal and additional 180 days) are not extended. On the construction of s. 144B I have come to the conclusion that sub-s. (1) of s. 144B does not authorise an ITO to issue more than one draft assessment orders. Section 153 does not render any additional assistance. The contention of the revenue that in the present case even the normal period is up to 1982, also does not have any direct bearing on the question involved. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The department is free to restart the proceeding at the stage of IAC under the proviso to sub-s. (4) of s. 144B. The petition succeeds with costs. Rule is, made absolute. Petition allowed, Rule made absolute.
-
1980 (12) TMI 43 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... r 1959-60 was involved and the question referred was whether the remuneration of the managing agent for the period April 1, 1956, to June 30, 1957, was deductible in the computation of the income of the previous year ending on 30th June, 1958, and their Lordships held that the liabilities could not have been said to have arisen from any date prior to the 2nd September, 1957, when the approval was given. But in that case the question of fact was specifically raised which will be clear from the order of reference itself. But that is not the position in the instant case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the finding recorded by the Tribunal must be taken as final and, therefore, the argument raised on behalf of the department has to be rejected. The question of law is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. K. B. N. SINGH C.J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 42 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut the machine and, therefore, so far as the assessee is concerned, the machine was used for hiring out and not for harvesting of agricultural produce on any land. May be that the persons who took the machine on hire used it for purposes of harvesting of agricultural produce on land but the use so made was not by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to any exemption. What is material to be seen is the use of the machine made by the assessee and not by the person to whom it is given on hire. The object behind the grant of exemption under cl. (ix) appears to us to be the encouragement of agriculture and to grant exemption to agriculturists who use tools, implements and equipment for agricultural purposes. This object also is consistent with the interpretation which we are inclined to put on cl.(ix). For the reasons given above, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... ommissioner s jurisdiction, therefore, did not exist and he could not have set aside the order of the ITO. In the circumstances, the answer to the question referred to its is in the affirmative, because on any reading of the ITO s order, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction under s. 33B of the Indian I.T, Act, 1922, to set aside the order except if he had found that the delay in the assessment proceedings was attributable to the assessee. We may here say that the learned counsel for the Commissioner did urge that this question would be open on remand by the ITO, but we find that this is not so because the order of the Commissioner is as follows The said order is, therefore, set aside and the Income-tax Officer is directed to make a fresh assessment after charging, interest under section 18A(8) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in accordance with law. The order, therefore, left no discretion with the ITO. The assessee will get costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1980 (12) TMI 40 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Penalty, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... expressed by the revenue as a reasonable view , it must be concluded that the penal provisions are capable of alternative meanings and we are bound to lean in favour of the subject. If the contention of the revenue is also a reasonable view we are constrained to hold that the penal provisions lack in clarity and on that ground alone the subject is entitled to benefit and cannot be penalised. However, we are firm that the view expressed by us is the only reasonable view. Upon the whole we answer the questions in the affirmative and against the revenue. We hold that s. 271(2) is not applicable in the instant case and the taxpayer had no tax liability at all relevant times for the assessment year 1963-64. We make no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the learned Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment. PATHAK, ACTG. C.J.-I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t was applicable even to non-insurance companies, a Division Bench, without going into the Explanation, simply purported to apply the principle in the decision in India Motor Parts and Accessories Ltd. v. CIT 1981 130 ITR 611. We are of the opinion that the construction of the relevant provision in r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act is not dependent upon whether the company is an insurance company or not, because there is nothing in that particular rule which is exclusively applicable either to an insurance company or to a non-insurance company. Further, a perusal of the Act does not show that there is any Explanation as Explanation II to r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act and the same may be a typographical error. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. The respondent Commissioner is entitled to his costs of this reference and the counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000 (Rs one thousand only).
............
|
