|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 2810 Records
-
1988 (11) TMI 127
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of initiation of acquisition proceedings under Section 269G of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the valuation report and the fair market value determination.
3. Presumption of tax evasion under Section 269C(2).
4. Comparison of sale instances and their relevance.
5. Consideration of development expenditures and other factors.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Initiation of Acquisition Proceedings:
The Competent Authority initiated acquisition proceedings based on the Valuation Officer's report, which indicated that the fair market value of the land was significantly higher than the apparent consideration. The Competent Authority recorded reasons for initiating the proceedings, stating that the conditions specified in Section 269C(1) were satisfied. The Tribunal found that the Competent Authority had applied its mind on the material (Valuation report) and that the notice under Section 269D(1) was issued accordingly. The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of acquisition proceedings was valid and not mechanical.
2. Validity of the Valuation Report and Fair Market Value Determination:
The Valuation Officer's report determined the fair market value at Rs. 49,09,300, whereas the land was sold for Rs. 28,61,734, indicating a significant undervaluation. The Competent Authority reduced the valuation by 15% based on objections raised by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the Competent Authority did not provide a clear basis for the 15% reduction and that the highest sale instances should not be the sole basis for valuation. The Tribunal emphasized that comparable instances should be identified by proximity from time-angle and situation-angle, considering plus and minus factors.
3. Presumption of Tax Evasion under Section 269C(2):
The Tribunal noted that the presumption under Section 269C(2) could be available even during the proceedings prior to the publication of the notice under Section 269D. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Sutlej Chit Fund and Financiers P. Ltd. vs. CIT, which supported this view. However, the Tribunal concluded that the Competent Authority could not be said to have satisfaction in terms of Section 269F(6) that the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15%.
4. Comparison of Sale Instances and Their Relevance:
The appellant argued that the land in question was undeveloped and not comparable to the instances used by the Valuation Officer. The Tribunal found that the land rates of DLF Enclave, which was better located, were not comparable to the land in question. The Tribunal also noted that the Competent Authority accepted that the DLF land was slightly better in location. The Tribunal concluded that the comparable cases relied upon by the appellant rendered the finding of undervaluation factually unsustainable.
5. Consideration of Development Expenditures and Other Factors:
The appellant argued that significant development expenditures had been incurred on the land. The Competent Authority observed that every colonizer had to incur such expenditures, and thus, the appellant was not entitled to any benefit on that account. The Tribunal agreed with the Competent Authority on this point but found that the overall satisfaction required under Section 269F(6) was not met.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the acquisition order passed by the Competent Authority. The Tribunal found that while the initiation of acquisition proceedings was valid, the Competent Authority did not satisfactorily establish that the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15%. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper identification of comparable instances and found the Competent Authority's reliance on the highest sale instances without a clear basis for reduction to be unsustainable.
-
1988 (11) TMI 126
Issues:
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,000 made by the ITO on account of capital gains arising from the sale of trees was justified.
2. Whether the receipt from the sale of trees should be considered as capital gains and thus not taxable.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-A heard an appeal contesting the order of the CIT(A) regarding the addition of Rs. 3,000 made by the ITO on account of capital gains from the sale of trees. The assessee, an HUF, sold fruit trees of ancestral land for Rs. 20,000, claiming the sale proceeds were not taxable as the trees were of spontaneous growth and were not intended to grow again. The ITO included Rs. 3,000 as capital gains based on instructions from the IAC. The CIT(A) vacated the addition, agreeing with the assessee's argument that the receipt was of capital nature and not includible.
Issue 2:
The Tribunal considered whether the inclusion of Rs. 3,000 as long-term capital gains was justified. Referring to the case of N.T. Patwardhan, where the Delhi High Court held that receipts from the sale of trees were capital in nature, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be correct. Additionally, in the case of Kailas Rubber and Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court held that sale proceeds of old rubber trees were capital receipts and not taxable as agricultural income. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's case was supported by legal precedents and, therefore, dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference was warranted in the present case.
-
1988 (11) TMI 125
Issues:
1. Disallowance of investment allowance and depreciation claimed on pathways.
2. Disallowance of rent paid for guest house premises.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Disallowance of investment allowance and depreciation claimed on pathways
The appellant contested the disallowance of investment allowance and depreciation on pathways used for business purposes. The Tribunal had previously remitted a similar issue back to the ITO for fresh decision due to insufficient facts. In the current case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the matter and remit it to the ITO for fresh disposal, in line with the previous order. The pathways were argued to be part of the plant entitled to investment allowance and depreciation, not to building rates. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the ITO to consider the specific use of pathways in the business operations before making a decision.
Issue 2: Disallowance of rent paid for guest house premises
The dispute revolved around the disallowance of Rs. 11,500 as rent paid to an individual, categorized as relating to a guest house by the ITO. The appellant argued that the premises were not a guest house as they were primarily used by employees visiting the factory. The Departmental Representative cited provisions of Section 37(5) to support the disallowance, stating that even employee-used premises can be considered a guest house. However, the Tribunal analyzed Sections 30, 37(4), and 37(5) to conclude that rent paid for guest house premises used for business purposes should be allowed under Section 30. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to support their decision, emphasizing that the law presented conflicting views but favored adopting the view beneficial to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the ITO to permit the claimed rent payment of Rs. 11,500.
In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant regarding both the disallowance of investment allowance and depreciation on pathways and the disallowance of rent paid for guest house premises.
-
1988 (11) TMI 124
Issues:
1. Determination of income from undisclosed sources based on seized cash.
2. Discrepancies in statements regarding cash receipt from Universal Travel Agency.
3. Assessment of seized cash belonging to the company or individual.
4. Treatment of seized cash in the hands of the assessee.
5. Addition of income and components in the computation.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the determination of income from undisclosed sources based on seized cash of Rs. 3,90,000 during a search operation. The assessee contended that the amount belonged to a company of which she was a director. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as the assessee's income from undisclosed sources under section 69 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Discrepancies arose in statements regarding the cash receipt from Universal Travel Agency, with conflicting accounts of who delivered the cash and when. The lack of clarity in these statements raised doubts about the authenticity of the transaction and the source of the funds.
3. The Tribunal considered the nature of the business conducted by the company, Luna Consultants Pvt. Ltd., and the role of the assessee as a director. It was noted that in cases where the only directors of a private limited company are a husband and wife, it is common for cash to be held by the individual directors. The Tribunal found it plausible that the seized cash belonged to the company rather than the individual assessee.
4. Based on the evidence presented, including assessment orders of the company, statements of the assessee, and business records, the Tribunal concluded that the seized cash was accounted for in the books of the company. The Tribunal held that the cash belonged to the private limited company and not to the individual assessee, leading to the deletion of the addition made by the lower authorities.
5. Apart from addressing the seized cash issue, the Tribunal also discussed other components added to the assessee's income, such as net profit, commission payments, motor car expenses, depreciation, and income tax. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, deleting the addition related to the seized cash and providing a comprehensive analysis of the case based on the evidence and legal provisions presented during the proceedings.
-
1988 (11) TMI 123
Issues:
1. Whether interest charged under section 216 of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 15,46,328 should be allowed.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the levy of penal interest under section 216 of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 15,46,328 on the assessee-company. The IAC(A) had charged this interest based on the assessee reducing its liabilities for advance tax in the first two instalments. The assessee contended that it estimated its income based on profits shown in its books of accounts and made advance tax payments accordingly. The IAC(A) rejected the assessee's arguments and imposed the interest. During the appellate proceedings, arguments similar to those before the IAC(A) were presented, citing a decision of the Allahabad High Court that the levy of interest under section 216 was discretionary and required proof of underestimation of income without justifiable cause.
The CIT(A), after considering the facts and applying the Allahabad High Court decision, canceled the interest levy. The Departmental Representative supported the IAC(A)'s order, arguing that the CIT(A) did not provide reasons for canceling the levy. The assessee's counsel supported the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that the company estimated income based on book accounts and revised estimates accordingly. The counsel presented detailed financial information and calculations to support the assessee's position, highlighting that no mala fide intention was attributed to the assessee.
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the assessee had filed advance tax estimates based on factual figures and projections. The Tribunal noted that the company, being primarily government-owned, had resources and qualified personnel for financial matters. The Tribunal emphasized that the levy of penal interest required proof of mala fide intention, which was absent in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the interest levy, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
-
1988 (11) TMI 122
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act.
2. Merits of the case regarding relief under Section 80J of the IT Act.
3. Inclusion of cash assistance and duty drawback as profits derived from the industrial undertaking.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the CIT to initiate action under Section 263, arguing that the CIT(A) had already applied his mind to the issue of computation of relief under Section 80J and issued necessary directions. The assessee contended that the order of the ITO had merged with the order of the CIT(A), thereby negating the CIT's jurisdiction to revise the order under Section 263. This argument was supported by various judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in the case of M/s Gojer Bros. vs. Ratanlal Singh and the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel vs. C.V. Shah.
The CIT, however, rejected the assessee's contention, stating that the issue involved in the proceedings under Section 263 was not the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT emphasized that the relief granted under Section 80J on profit from Unit II, which included cash assistance and duty drawback, was not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the CIT held that the ITO's order on this point was not displaced by a finding or direction given by higher authorities, thus maintaining jurisdiction under Section 263.
The appellate tribunal upheld the CIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263, agreeing with the arguments advanced by the DR and supported by two decisions of the Tribunal, which indicated that the issue before the CIT(A) was different from the issue before the CIT.
2. Merits of the Case Regarding Relief Under Section 80J of the IT Act:
The assessee argued that cash compensatory allowance and duty drawback were integral parts of the profits earned by Unit No. II and had a direct indivisible nexus to the manufacturing activity. The assessee provided a detailed explanation of how these receipts were integral to the export process and constituted profits from the new industrial undertaking.
The CIT, however, disagreed, stating that income from export incentives, including cash assistance and duty drawback, could not be considered as profits derived from the industrial undertaking. The CIT referred to various judicial precedents, including the Privy Council's decision in CIT vs. Raja Bahadur Kamakhaya Narayan Singh and the Supreme Court's decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industries Company Ltd. vs. CIT, to support the view that the expression "derived from" had a narrow meaning and required a direct source of profit from the industrial undertaking.
The appellate tribunal, however, found considerable force in the assessee's submissions and held that cash compensatory support (CCS) and duty drawback received by the assessee would qualify for deduction under Section 80J. The tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Ptg. Pvt. Ltd., which established a direct nexus between the export of goods and the receipt of cash subsidy or allowance. The tribunal also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Wvg. Co. Ltd., which held that the items received due to export business constituted income derived from the industrial undertaking.
3. Inclusion of Cash Assistance and Duty Drawback as Profits Derived from the Industrial Undertaking:
The CIT argued that cash assistance and duty drawback could not be considered as profits derived from the industrial undertaking, as the immediate source of these incentives was the scheme of the Central Government. The CIT emphasized that the expression "derived from" required a direct source of profit from the industrial undertaking, and in the absence of such direct source, the relief under Section 80J was not allowable.
The appellate tribunal, however, held that the CCS and duty drawback received by the assessee constituted income derived from an industrial undertaking and were eligible for relief under Section 80J. The tribunal noted that the decisions relied upon by the revenue had no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The tribunal emphasized that the Gujarat High Court's decision in Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Ptg. Pvt. Ltd. clearly supported the assessee's stand, establishing a direct nexus between the export of goods and the receipt of cash subsidy or allowance.
Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT in so far as they pertained to relief under Section 80J and restored the orders of the ITO. The tribunal upheld the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 by the CIT but ruled in favor of the assessee on the merits of the case, allowing the relief under Section 80J for both assessment years. The appeals were partly allowed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 121
Issues Involved:
1. Taxation of retention remuneration received by foreign technicians.
2. Taxation of perquisites provided to foreign technicians.
3. Validity of assessment order in respect of GSFC as the agent of foreign technicians.
4. Applicability of Section 9(1)(i) or (ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
5. Exemption under Section 10(6)(viia) or Section 10(14) of the Indian Income Tax Act.
6. Charging of interest under Section 215.
7. Taxability of living allowance provided to foreign technicians.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxation of Retention Remuneration Received by Foreign Technicians:
The primary issue concerns the taxation of retention remuneration received by foreign technicians from Inventa in their home country. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) included the actual amounts received in Europe and the difference between the amounts paid by GSFC to Inventa and those paid by Inventa to the technicians. The Commissioner upheld the taxation of the actual amounts received but deleted the difference, reasoning that the latter had not accrued to the foreign technicians and only the actual amounts received could be taxed.
2. Taxation of Perquisites Provided to Foreign Technicians:
The ITO added various perquisites to the taxable income of the foreign technicians, including free furnished accommodation, free conveyance, travel expenses, personal use of phone/family accommodation, and extra baggage. The Commissioner confirmed the additions related to travel expenses, personal use of phone/family accommodation, and extra baggage but left the matter of grossing up for reconsideration by the ITO in light of a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal found that the ITO was justified in making the assessment without waiting for additional information from GSFC but restored the matter of extra baggage payment to the ITO for verification.
3. Validity of Assessment Order in Respect of GSFC as the Agent of Foreign Technicians:
The assessee contended that the assessment order was invalid as it was the foreign personnel who had filed the return, not GSFC. The Tribunal rejected this contention, noting that GSFC had been recorded as the agent of the foreign technicians, a status confirmed by a previous Tribunal order.
4. Applicability of Section 9(1)(i) or (ii) of the Indian Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that Sections 9(1)(i) or (ii) were inapplicable due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship between GSFC and the foreign personnel. The Tribunal clarified that the relevant section was indeed 9(1)(ii) and that the definition of salary under Section 17 was broad, not requiring the employer to be Indian. The Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) was fully applicable, as it declared that income for services rendered in India should be regarded as earned in India, regardless of who paid it or where it was paid.
5. Exemption under Section 10(6)(viia) or Section 10(14) of the Indian Income Tax Act:
The Commissioner allowed the exemption under Section 10(6)(viia), relying on a previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal confirmed that the assessee was entitled to this exemption up to Rs. 24,000 per year, with the remaining balance being taxable.
6. Charging of Interest under Section 215:
The assessee's ground regarding the charging of interest under Section 215 was not decided by the Commissioner. The Tribunal restored this matter to the Commissioner for a decision according to law.
7. Taxability of Living Allowance Provided to Foreign Technicians:
The Department appealed against the Commissioner's decision to treat the living allowance as exempt. The Commissioner had observed that the accommodation charges were recovered from the living allowance, and thus, it should not be added as a perquisite. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the living allowance was given as reimbursement rather than a personal advantage, following the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Pgnatale. Therefore, the living allowance was not assessable, and the Department's appeals were dismissed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment addressed multiple issues related to the taxation of foreign technicians working under an agreement between GSFC and Inventa. The Tribunal upheld the taxation of actual retention remuneration received, confirmed certain perquisites as taxable, and allowed exemptions under specific sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal also clarified the applicability of relevant sections and restored certain matters to the ITO and Commissioner for further consideration. The Department's appeals regarding the taxability of living allowance were dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Registration of assessee firms denied by ITO but reversed by Commissioner, leading to Revenue's appeal.
2. Application for adjournment or remand made by assessees based on ongoing Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court related to a similar case.
3. Assessees argue for adjournment or remand to lower authorities to present additional materials and avoid injustice due to consideration of facts from a related case.
4. Tribunal's decision in the case of Samir Builders is cited as a basis for not granting adjournment or remand.
5. Assessees' request for remand not considered competent as they did not fully oppose the appeal.
6. Tribunal finds facts from related cases relevant and offers to consider all submissions but rejects the request for remand.
7. Tribunal upholds the decision in the case of Samir Builders and restores the ITO's orders, allowing the appeals.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the issue of registration of assessee firms, where the ITO initially denied registration, but the Commissioner reversed this decision, prompting an appeal by the Revenue. The crux of the matter lies in the genuineness of the firms in question, with the Tribunal's decision in the case of Samir Builders playing a significant role in the proceedings.
2. The assessees sought an adjournment or remand based on an ongoing Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court related to a similar case, arguing that the outcome of that petition would impact the present appeals. They expressed concerns about the potential financial burden and procedural complexities if the appeals were decided without considering the pending Supreme Court matter.
3. The assessees' application for adjournment or remand was rooted in the fear of injustice due to the consideration of facts from the case of Samir Builders without affording them an opportunity to address those facts. They contended that remanding the appeals to lower authorities would allow for a fair assessment based on all relevant materials, ensuring a just outcome for the assessees.
4. The Tribunal, however, relied on its decision in the case of Samir Builders to reject the request for adjournment or remand, emphasizing that the assessees failed to demonstrate any distinguishing features that would warrant a different approach. The Tribunal aligned with the Revenue's position based on the precedent set by the Samir Builders case.
5. The Tribunal found the assessees' request for remand to be incompetent since they did not fully oppose the appeal, which is a prerequisite for such an application. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessees' counsel did not challenge the facts found in the Samir Builders case, further diminishing the grounds for remand.
6. Despite the assessees' arguments, the Tribunal maintained that the facts from related cases were relevant and offered to consider all submissions. However, the Tribunal rejected the request for remand, asserting that the assessees had the opportunity to present their case and address any pertinent facts before the Tribunal.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld its decision in the case of Samir Builders and restored the ITO's orders, thereby allowing the appeals in favor of the Revenue. The judgment underscores the importance of consistency in decisions and the Tribunal's authority to rely on precedents to reach a verdict in similar cases.
-
1988 (11) TMI 119
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack upheld the order of cognizance against the petitioners in a case involving violations of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court found sufficient grounds to proceed based on the prosecution report and supporting documents, rejecting the argument that detailed reasons were required at the stage of cognizance. The petitioners can seek discharge if prosecution evidence fails to establish a case against them. The criminal miscellaneous case was dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 118
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of prosecution by Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. on behalf of the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.
2. Applicability of Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the stay of proceedings until the receipt of final police reports.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Prosecution by Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I.:
The petitioners contended that the prosecution should not be conducted by the Senior Public Prosecutors and Special Public Prosecutors of the C.B.I. because the authorisation by the complainant (Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports) to the Public Prosecutor was invalid. They argued that Public Prosecutors could only conduct prosecutions on behalf of the Central Government, not on behalf of individual complainants. Under Section 25(1A) and Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Central Government may appoint Public Prosecutors for specific cases, but such appointments must be authorised correctly. The petitioners cited several cases, including Kannappan v. Abbas and Others and Naganna v. Krishna Murthy, to support their argument that Public Prosecutors cannot defend accused persons or conduct prosecutions without proper authorisation.
However, the court found that these cases were distinguishable. The Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Sriramulu, argued that the Central Government had authorised officers, including the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, to file complaints under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. These officers were part of the Central Government, and thus, the Public Prosecutors were validly authorised to conduct prosecutions on their behalf. The court referred to the decision in Kadiresan v. Kasim, which affirmed that Public Prosecutors could conduct prosecutions for government departments and agencies. Additionally, the court noted that Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows any person to conduct prosecution with the court's permission, which was granted in these cases.
2. Applicability of Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The petitioners argued that the private complaints should be stayed under Section 210(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure until the receipt of final police reports, as first-information-reports had been registered by the C.B.I. but no final reports were filed. The court, however, held that Section 210(1) was not applicable in these cases. The court noted that under Section 6 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, only complaints in writing by authorised officers could be taken cognizance of, and there was no provision for investigation under the Customs Act, 1962, or the Import and Export Act, 1947, by any officers concerned. Therefore, the filing of charge-sheets by the police was not contemplated, and the private complaints filed by authorised officers were valid.
The court concluded that the objections raised by the petitioners were not valid and upheld the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, allowing the prosecutions to proceed. The court found no illegality or impropriety in the authorisation of the Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the complainant.
-
1988 (11) TMI 117
Issues:
Claim for payment of balance amount under rebate for excess sugar production. Failure of Assistant Collector to pass an order on merits. Dispute over the amount payable to the petitioner. Lack of consideration of representation by Assistant Collector. Challenge to the order of Assistant Collector.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of a balance amount under rebate for excess sugar production by the petitioner's factory. The petitioner claimed a balance amount of Rs. 3,43,203.55 based on notifications issued by the Central Government. However, the Chief Accounts Officer contended that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed amount. The petitioner made multiple representations to various authorities seeking the payment of the balance amount.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davanagere, in an order dated 9-3-1987, rejected the petitioner's representation without considering the merits of the claim. The High Court noted that the Assistant Collector erred in not passing an order on the merits of the representation submitted by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that when a representation is made to an administrative authority, it is essential for the authority to consider, verify, and decide upon it.
The Court highlighted that the Assistant Collector failed to acknowledge the Tribunal's observation that the Chief Accounts Officer lacked the competence to pass an adjudicatory order. The Court criticized the Assistant Collector for not comprehending the implications of the Tribunal's observation and for passing an order without proper consideration. The Court concluded that the Assistant Collector's order was misconceived and lacked the exercise of discretion.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Assistant Collector dated 9-3-1987, and directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the petitioner's representation, provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, and dispose of the matter on merits and in accordance with the law promptly. The Court did not award any costs in this case.
-
1988 (11) TMI 116
Issues:
Detention under COFEPOSA Act while already in custody.
Analysis:
The petitioner, detained under the COFEPOSA Act, challenged the order on the basis that he was already in custody, questioning the grounds for further detention. The detention order was issued under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order detailed the petitioner's involvement in an incident where he agreed to keep bags containing illegal goods for a sum of money, leading to suspicions of abetting smuggling activities. The detention order was based on the apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner might continue criminal activities.
The court referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment in Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, emphasizing that detention under such circumstances should not be based solely on the likelihood of the accused obtaining bail. The court found that the order of detention in this case did not adhere to established principles of preventive detention and was therefore unsustainable. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the detention order and ordering the petitioner's immediate release unless held under lawful detention for other reasons.
-
1988 (11) TMI 115
The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of gold coins and primary gold by customs authorities under the Customs Act and Gold (Control) Act. The court found the evidence supporting the confiscation to be valid and not subject to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was advised to approach the revisional authority if they wished to challenge the confiscation of primary gold.
-
1988 (11) TMI 114
Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal refusing to release seized and confiscated gold upon payment of redemption fine.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in a money lending business, handed over old ornaments for melting and preparation of new ornaments to a goldsmith. Customs Authorities seized the gold, alleging a fictitious marking on a gold bar. The Collector confiscated the gold under the Gold Control Act, imposing a fine. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider allowing redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. The Tribunal, deeming the contravention serious, upheld absolute confiscation, denying redemption on payment of fine. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred by not considering the Collector's stance on redemption fine and failed to acknowledge the gold was not smuggled or of foreign origin.
The High Court noted the prevailing practice of allowing redemption on payment of fine and cited a circular authorizing such releases. The Court criticized the Tribunal for disregarding this circular and not considering the petitioner's undertaking to convert the gold into ornaments. It emphasized the duty to reasonably exercise the power to grant redemption, citing a prior judgment. The Court found the Tribunal's reasons for denial unsound, as it failed to follow the Court's directive to consider redemption. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was flawed, considering irrelevant matters and overlooking established practices and legal provisions.
Regarding an alternative remedy through a reference application, the Court deemed it costly and delayed justice. The Court allowed the petitioner's application, setting aside the Tribunal's order and directing the Collector to permit redemption on payment of fine. The Court instructed the Collector to determine the redemption fine based on the gold's value at the time of seizure. The petitioner was required to produce a certificate from a certified goldsmith within a specified timeframe. Failure to provide the certificate would allow the respondents to take legal action. All parties were instructed to act as per the Court's order.
-
1988 (11) TMI 113
The High Court of Delhi quashed previous orders and remanded the case to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for fresh decision. The claim should not be dismissed due to time limitations and must consider Supreme Court judgments on mistake of law. The Board must decide within six months.
-
1988 (11) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Seizure of contraband gold bars from Omani Nationals at the Bombay Airport.
2. Bail application by the accused Omani Nationals.
3. Allegations of conspiracy and smuggling against the accused.
4. Arguments regarding the need for further investigation and the possibility of absconding.
5. Economic impact of smuggling activities on the country.
6. Decision on the bail application and refusal of bail.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the seizure of 109 gold bars from Omani Nationals at the Bombay Airport. The accused had concealed the gold bars in various items and luggage, totaling 12,709.40 grams in weight. The Customs Officers intercepted them despite their initial denial of carrying contraband, leading to their arrest and the seizure of the gold under the Customs Act.
2. The accused filed a bail application, arguing against the allegations of conspiracy. The defense claimed that each individual was carrying gold for personal sale in India and that their association and simultaneous arrival did not imply a conspiracy. They suggested pleading guilty for an early resolution, emphasizing the lack of tangible investigation progress.
3. The Customs Department countered the bail application, asserting the need for further investigation. They highlighted the suspicious circumstances of the accused arriving together with contraband, indicating a potential conspiracy. Concerns about absconding, tampering with evidence, and the complexity of the case were raised to oppose bail.
4. The judgment acknowledged the absence of clear admissions of prior gold smuggling by the accused but recognized the need for thorough investigation due to the interconnected nature of the accused's activities. The court considered the possibility of crucial clues from phone records and connections to local buyers, supporting the Department's argument for more time for investigation.
5. The economic impact of smuggling, especially the significant value of the seized gold bars, was emphasized. The court noted the detrimental effects of such activities on the country's economic structure and societal stability, highlighting the seriousness of the offense.
6. Ultimately, the court rejected the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offense, the risk of absconding by foreign nationals, and the need for further investigation. The judgment clarified that the decision was specific to the bail application and did not preclude future considerations by the presiding judge or magistrate on other aspects of the case.
-
1988 (11) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Allegations of forged vouchers and bogus transactions.
3. Necessity of custody for investigation.
4. Apprehension of tampering with evidence.
5. Conditions for granting bail.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court examined whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain bail applications under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly for offenses punishable with imprisonment for life or for a lesser term. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate could entertain bail applications since none of the offenses were punishable with death. The Magistrate, however, had rejected the bail applications, believing he lacked jurisdiction due to the terminology used in Section 437. The court noted the need for serious examination and consideration of this interpretation, but since the petitioners were being granted bail by the High Court, the issue became more academic and was not conclusively decided in this proceeding.
2. Allegations of Forged Vouchers and Bogus Transactions:
The petitioners, who run jewelry shops, were accused of creating false vouchers to show that gold ornaments were purchased from fictitious customers. The Department alleged that these vouchers were forged to camouflage the actual sources of gold. Summons issued to the purported customers revealed that many addresses were either incomplete or the persons were non-existent. The Department argued that the vouchers were bogus, and the transactions were fabricated to cover up the true sources of gold.
3. Necessity of Custody for Investigation:
The Department contended that the custody of the petitioners was necessary to investigate the alleged conspiracy and to tap the sources from where the gold was obtained. They argued that without contacting the purported customers in flesh and blood, the investigation would remain incomplete. However, the court found that the Department had already had sufficient time to investigate and had not made significant progress. The court noted that the registers and documents had been in the Department's possession since September 1988, and further custody of the petitioners was not justified.
4. Apprehension of Tampering with Evidence:
The Department expressed concerns that the petitioners might tamper with evidence if released on bail. However, the court found these allegations to be vague and unsubstantiated. The court reasoned that if the persons mentioned in the vouchers were non-existent, there would be no question of tampering with such evidence. Moreover, the court noted that the documents were already in the Department's possession, reducing the risk of tampering. The court also observed that even if some persons had been contacted and had not supported the defense, this indicated that there was no tampering.
5. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court decided to grant bail to the petitioners, emphasizing that this decision did not undermine the seriousness of the allegations. The court imposed conditions to protect the Department's interests:
- Each petitioner was required to present themselves before the Gold Control Officer daily for two weeks and thereafter as required.
- The petitioners were not allowed to leave the metropolis for one month without prior permission.
- The petitioners were prohibited from tampering with evidence.
- The Department was given the liberty to seek cancellation of bail if it was abused.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions and granted bail to the petitioners, each in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the like amount, or two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. The court emphasized that the observations made were restricted to the bail application and did not reflect on the merits of the case, which would be decided at trial.
-
1988 (11) TMI 110
Whether the nameplate could be considered as component part of the electric fan, so as to be eligible for proforma credit under the exemption notification No. 201/79, dated 4.6.1979?
Held that:- The Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion that the nameplate was not a piece of decoration. Without the nameplate, the electric fans as such, could not be marketed; and that the dealer was entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 201/79-C.E. for the purpose of obtaining proforma credit. Fans with nameplates, have certain value which the fans without the nameplates, did not have. If that be so, then the value added for the accretion of nameplate was entitled to proforma credit in terms of the said notification. It is true that an electric fan may perform its essential function without affixation of the nameplate, but that is not enough. Electric fans do not become marketable products without affixation of nameplates. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (11) TMI 109
Whether the products in question retain the principal characteristics and physical properties of crushed bones?
Held that:- The products in question are derived merely by the extraction of the mineral parts of the bones. Gelatine is obtained by a further treatment, with an alkali, of the ossein manufactured from the bones. It is the collagen which forms the organic content of the bones and is utilised in the manufacture of ossein and gelatine. The word 'product' is defined in Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary as "anything produced or obtained as a result of some operation or work". The expression "bone products" therefore merely means anything produced or obtained from bones. Whether such derivation is by a simple physical process or by a chemical reaction would seem to make no difference to the end product. Buttermilk, for instance, does not cease to be a milk product merely because a chemical process is involved in the transformation. The ossein and gelatine manufactured by the respondent can, without straining the expression used in the notification, be described as bone products. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the products manufactured by the respondent company to the exemption under the Notification dated 30-6-1975. Appeal dismissedf
-
1988 (11) TMI 108
Whether non-alcoholic beverage bases are 'food products' or "food preparations" covered by the exemption notification No. 55/75-CE of 1st March, 1975?
Held that:- The purpose of exemption is to encourage food production and also give boost to the production of goods in common use and need. After all the purpose of exemption is to help production of food and food preparations at cheaper price and also help production of items which are in common use and need like electric light and power.
We have no doubt, in our opinion, but having regard to the language used it would not be in consonance with the spirit and the reason of law to give exemption for non-alcoholic beverage bases under the notification in question. Bearing the aforesaid purpose, in our opinion, it cannot be contended that expensive items like Gold-Spot base, Limca-base or Thumps up-base were intended to be given exemption at the cost of public exchequer. The appeals have to be allowed and the decision of the Tribunal reversed.
............
|
9911796707
