|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 3414 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 115
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of the assessee's professional income.
2. Method of accounting adopted by the assessee.
3. Addition to the assessee's income by the ITO.
4. Charge of interest under section 215 of the IT Act.
5. Observations and remarks by the CIT(A) on the assessee's accounting system.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of the Assessee's Professional Income:
The primary issue was whether the professional income reported by the assessee, a registered firm engaged in the legal profession, was accurately reflected. The ITO noted discrepancies in the credit balances of clients' accounts and the debit balances in the partners' accounts, suggesting that the firm's accounting method might minimize its true tax liability. The ITO concluded that the difference in outstanding receipts from clients between A.Y. 1981-82 and A.Y. 1982-83 (Rs. 7,32,363) represented unreported professional fees, thus adding this amount to the assessee's income.
2. Method of Accounting Adopted by the Assessee:
The assessee maintained accounts on a cash basis, crediting amounts received from clients to their respective accounts and debiting expenses incurred on their behalf. Fees were only charged upon completion of work or case finalization. This method had been consistently followed and accepted by the department. The CIT(A) found peculiarities in the firm's books, such as advances not adjusted against fees and significant debit balances in partners' accounts, suggesting potential tax evasion. Despite this, the CIT(A) acknowledged that the accounting system was in line with Bar Council rules.
3. Addition to the Assessee's Income by the ITO:
The CIT(A) reviewed the ITO's addition of Rs. 7,32,363 to the assessee's income and recalculated the net credit balance, resulting in a reduced addition of Rs. 1,86,169. The CIT(A) noted that certain amounts, such as fees payable to Shri J.M. Thakore and arbitration deposits, were not related to the assessee's receipts and thus excluded them from the addition.
4. Charge of Interest under Section 215 of the IT Act:
The ITO charged interest under section 215 based on the increased income. The CIT(A) confirmed this charge on the reduced income. The Tribunal noted that consequential relief should be provided by the ITO when giving effect to the order.
5. Observations and Remarks by the CIT(A) on the Assessee's Accounting System:
The CIT(A) made adverse comments on the assessee's accounting method, suggesting it resulted in tax evasion. The Tribunal found these remarks unnecessary, emphasizing that the accounting system was consistent with Bar Council rules and had been accepted by the department in past and subsequent years.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The addition to the income was reduced to Rs. 43,770, as agreed by the assessee, and the rest of the addition was deleted. The Tribunal also addressed the charge of interest under section 215, ensuring that the ITO would provide consequential relief. The Tribunal refrained from further commenting on the CIT(A)'s remarks about the accounting system, given the assessee's success on merits.
-
1990 (12) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Withdrawal of investment allowance under section 155(4A) r.w.s. 32A(4)(ii)(a) and/or (b) of the IT Act.
2. Interpretation of "transfer" in the context of dissolution of a partnership firm.
3. Utilization of investment allowance reserve post-dissolution of the firm.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Withdrawal of Investment Allowance:
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the investment allowance, which the ITO had correctly withdrawn under section 155(4A) of the IT Act. The ITO's decision was based on the fact that the firm was dissolved within the statutory period of ten years, and there was no possibility of utilizing the investment allowance reserve for the purchase of new machinery. The ITO argued that the conditions prescribed under section 155(4A) were violated as the plant and machinery were sold or transferred before the expiry of eight years, and the investment allowance reserve was not utilized within ten years for acquiring new machinery.
2. Interpretation of "Transfer":
The CIT(A) held that the allotment of assets and liabilities upon the dissolution of the firm does not amount to a "transfer" within the meaning of sections 155(4A) and 32A(4). The CIT(A) relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT, which held that there is no transfer of assets involved when the assets are allotted to one or more partners upon the dissolution of the firm. The Supreme Court observed that a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity apart from its partners, and the distribution of assets upon dissolution is merely a mutual adjustment of rights between the partners, not a transfer of assets.
3. Utilization of Investment Allowance Reserve:
The assessee argued that the investment allowance reserve created in the assessment year 1977-78 was utilized in the next year by purchasing machinery worth Rs. 3,24,000. Similarly, the investment allowance reserve created in the assessment year 1978-79 was utilized by the partner who took over the assets and liabilities by purchasing machinery worth Rs. 1,74,917 in the subsequent year. The CIT(A) supported this view, stating that the condition regarding the utilization of the investment allowance reserve for purchasing new machinery applies only if the assessee who was granted the investment allowance continues to exist. The Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Balasubramanian held that if the assessee who got the rebate ceases to exist, there is no scope for invoking section 155(5) for withdrawal of the rebate.
Judgment:
The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and various judicial precedents, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the conditions prescribed under section 155(4A) r.w.s. 32A(4) about the non-utilization of the investment allowance reserve could not be fulfilled due to the dissolution of the firm. The Tribunal also observed that the investment allowance reserve was utilized for purchasing new machinery in subsequent years, fulfilling the purpose of promoting industrial growth. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) rightly held that there was no justification in withdrawing the investment allowance granted to the assessee.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the investment allowance and that the dissolution of the firm did not constitute a transfer of assets within the meaning of the relevant sections of the IT Act.
-
1990 (12) TMI 113
Issues:
Appeal and cross objection related to assessment year 1983-84.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of a factory building and machinery for the purpose of claiming depreciation. The Department argued that since no registered deed was executed transferring the property, the legal ownership remained with the original owner. However, the assessee trust contended that the property belonged to the firm and depreciation had been granted prior to the entry of the trust as a partner. The key argument was whether the property transfer on dissolution of the firm required a registered deed. The AAC had allowed depreciation on the factory building, but the Department appealed the decision.
The Tribunal analyzed the legal position under the Indian Partnership Act, emphasizing that property contributed to a partnership becomes part of the partnership property without the need for a registered deed. Citing various decisions, including the Supreme Court case of Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, the Tribunal highlighted that the interest of partners in partnership assets is movable property and does not require compulsory registration under the Registration Act. The Tribunal also referred to the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, where it was held that no registered document was necessary for a partner to contribute immovable property to a partnership firm.
Based on the legal principles established by previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that when the property was contributed to the partnership as capital and treated as partnership property, the legal ownership transferred to the firm. Therefore, on dissolution of the firm, the property in question belonged to the assessee trust, entitling it to claim depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's reliance on other cases that did not address the specific issue of property contribution to a partnership and its subsequent allocation on dissolution.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal against granting depreciation to the assessee trust, affirming that the property legally belonged to the trust after being allotted on dissolution of the firm. The decision was based on the provisions of the Partnership Act and established legal precedents regarding property transfer within a partnership structure.
-
1990 (12) TMI 112
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 for short-landing of polyethylene moulding powder.
2. Argument regarding survey shortage after joint survey pursuant to Calcutta High Court Order.
3. Responsibility of Steamer Agent for cargo damage and shortage.
4. Allegation of excess cargo clearance leading to shortage.
5. Consideration of pilferage on docks as a possible cause of shortage.
6. Timeliness of joint survey and determination of short-landing.
7. Compliance with Public Notice 230/86 of Calcutta, Cpl. for survey timing.
8. Establishment of short-landing and dismissal of the revision application.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a revision application filed by M/s. Chowgule Brothers challenging the imposition of a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the short-landing of polyethylene moulding powder. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, leading to the revision application. During the personal hearing, the applicant's representative argued that the shortage was due to a survey shortage after a joint survey following a Calcutta High Court Order. The applicant relied on a Calcutta High Court judgment and Customs House Public Notice to support their argument regarding the timing of the survey in such cases.
Upon reviewing the submissions and evidence, the government observed that the cargo, part of a larger consignment, showed signs of damage even before unloading. The damaged cargo and re-packed bags indicated a potential loss of quantity before unloading, attributing some responsibility to the Steamer Agent for the shortage. The government dismissed the argument that excess cargo clearance by the Clearing Agent led to the shortage, emphasizing that the shortage was genuine based on the quantity unloaded.
The judgment also considered the possibility of pilferage on the docks as a cause of shortage. It highlighted the importance of conducting a survey within a reasonable time of unloading to determine the actual cause of shortage. The timeliness of the joint survey was deemed appropriate in this case, considering the circumstances and the proximity of the survey to the unloading period.
In assessing compliance with Public Notice 230/86 of Calcutta, Cpl., the government concluded that the steps taken by all parties involved were sufficient to establish the short-landing. Despite the delay in conducting the survey, the government found the short-landing to be proven based on the evidence and circumstances presented. As a result, the revision application was dismissed, affirming the imposition of the penalty for short-landing of the imported goods.
-
1990 (12) TMI 111
The judgment clarified that drawback on Salfat Oil applies only to refined oil. The application of Rule 3 of the Drawback Rules is applicable even if duty is paid on only some inputs. The case is remanded to the Assistant Collector for reconsideration.
-
1990 (12) TMI 110
Issues:
Detention of HDPE bags by Port Trust authorities, complaint by M/s. Climax Pipe Pvt. Ltd., refusal to take delivery, unlawful detention, seeking consequential reliefs, compensation for illegal detention.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an importer of HDPE, appointed a clearing agent for clearance of goods. Subsequently, a complaint was made by M/s. Climax Pipe Pvt. Ltd. to the Yellow Gate Police Station, alleging that some goods taken delivery of by the petitioner belonged to them. As a result, the Port Trust authorities requested the petitioner to bring back the goods for further investigation, which were stored in safe custody. Despite efforts to resolve the issue, M/s. Climax Pipe Pvt. Ltd. refused to take delivery of the goods, leading to prolonged detention by the Port Trust authorities.
The Deputy Manager of Indira Dock directed M/s. Climax Pipe Pvt. Ltd. to take delivery of the goods, but they refused, claiming the goods were not theirs. Subsequently, the Port Trust authorities agreed to return the goods to the petitioner or the clearing agent upon obtaining a no objection certificate from the police. After delays and inconclusive investigations, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief from the unlawful detention of the goods.
The High Court found that the detention of the goods by the Port Trust authorities was unlawful, especially after receiving a no objection from the police. The court noted that the petitioner should not have been required to seek a court order for the release of the goods. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent to release the goods without claiming demurrage or any other amount. The court also addressed the issue of seeking compensation for the illegal detention of the goods for six years, which was resolved by agreement between the parties. The respondent was ordered to implement the court's decision within two weeks.
In conclusion, the judgment granted relief to the petitioner, emphasizing the unlawfulness of the detention and directing the respondent to release the goods promptly without any additional charges.
-
1990 (12) TMI 109
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Central Excises and Salt Act - Charge framed under incorrect entry in First Schedule - Failure to prove charge - Admissibility of evidence - Discrepancy in charge entry.
Analysis:
The appeals in this case arose from a decision made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 18923 of 1980 and related cases. The State of Maharashtra filed a private complaint against a company and its directors, alleging an offence under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The accused were charged with manufacturing electric wiper motors without the required license, leading to contravention of the provisions. The Central Excise Officers discovered this during a visit to the factory premises in 1977, which initiated departmental adjudication proceedings and a court complaint. Initially, the accused were discharged, but after a revision application, the charge was framed as directed by the Sessions Court, and evidence was recorded.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Magistrate acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution failed to prove the charges. The State appealed this acquittal, arguing that the electric wiper motors fell under a specific category in the Act. However, the defense pointed out that the charge referred to a different entry in the First Schedule. The defense contended that the Magistrate was directed to frame the charge based on that specific entry, not the one mentioned by the State. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the charge should have been based on the correct entry, and since it was not, the prosecution could not succeed.
Furthermore, the court highlighted an admission made by a prosecution witness, confirming that the correct entry in the First Schedule was different from the one mentioned in the charge. This admission supported the defense's position and weakened the prosecution's case. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges due to the discrepancy in the charge entry. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the Magistrate's orders acquitting the accused were upheld. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurately framing charges and presenting evidence to establish the elements of the offense under the Central Excises and Salt Act.
-
1990 (12) TMI 107
Issues:
Whether masticated rubber is liable to excise duty under Entry 40.01 of the Schedule of Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Principal Question and Grounds for Consideration:
The main issue in the judgment revolves around determining whether masticated rubber is subject to excise duty under Entry 40.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The learned single Judge initially ruled that no excise duty is applicable to masticated rubber based on the premise that masticated rubber does not fundamentally change from natural rubber and due to an exemption under Notification No. 189/83. However, the High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, concurred with the single Judge's conclusion but on different grounds.
2. Legal Framework and Interpretation:
The analysis delves into the legal framework concerning excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which allows for levying duties on goods manufactured or produced in India, excluding specific categories. The court emphasizes the need for masticated rubber to fall under the items specified in Entry 40.01 of the Schedule to attract excise duty, highlighting the requirement for goods to be produced or manufactured in India for the duty to apply.
3. Manufacture of Masticated Rubber:
The respondents argued that masticated rubber does not qualify as goods manufactured or produced in India as it is an intermediary stage in the tire manufacturing process and lacks commercial value or marketability as a standalone product. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court emphasizes that for an article to be considered "goods" subject to excise duty, it must be capable of being sold in the market or known as goods in the market. The absence of marketability is crucial in determining the dutiability of masticated rubber.
4. Marketability and Commercial Viability:
The court examines whether masticated rubber is marketable or known as goods in the market. The respondents assert that masticated rubber is a semi-processed material used to prepare rubber for tire manufacturing, lacking independent market presence as it reverts to its original form and characteristics after processing. The court accepts the respondents' contention, emphasizing that masticated rubber is not a marketable product and cannot be considered as goods manufactured or produced for excise duty purposes.
5. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeals:
Based on the arguments presented and the lack of marketability of masticated rubber, the court dismisses all appeals, affirming that excise duty is not applicable to masticated rubber. The judgment concludes by stating that masticated rubber does not meet the criteria for being considered as goods produced or manufactured, thus exempting it from excise duty. No costs are awarded in the case.
This detailed analysis of the judgment thoroughly examines the legal aspects and reasoning behind the decision regarding the liability of masticated rubber to excise duty, providing clarity on the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents.
-
1990 (12) TMI 105
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay quashed an order imposing penalties on a petitioner and its partners due to a breach of natural justice. The show-cause notice was not received by the petitioner as it was returned undelivered with the remark "Not known." The court ordered that the notice be served on the petitioner's advocate and proceedings recommence. (1990 (12) TMI 105)
-
1990 (12) TMI 103
Issues:
1. Compliance with court orders and issuance of detention certificate.
2. Failure to pass an order within the stipulated time frame.
3. Instructions given by the Customs department to the respondent's representative.
4. Costs of the petition.
Comprehensive Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the compliance of court orders and the issuance of a detention certificate for goods covered by a petition. Initially, an order was passed directing the 2nd respondent to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and subsequently pass an order. However, a second writ petition was filed challenging the sufficiency of material and opportunity provided, leading to an appeal. The appeal Court set aside the previous order and directed the 2nd respondent to hear the appellants, allowing them to produce supporting documents within three weeks.
2. The third writ petition was filed due to the failure of the 2nd respondent to pass an order within the specified time frame. The Assistant Collector of Customs cited communication delays as the reason for the delay in providing a hearing to the petitioner. The court found the reason provided in the affidavit-in-reply to be untenable and unacceptable, leading to a directive for the immediate clearance of the goods and the issuance of a detention certificate.
3. The judgment also addresses the issue of instructions given to the respondent's representative by the Customs department. It was noted that the representative could not have made statements without being instructed by a Customs officer. The court found the reasons for not providing a hearing as directed to be unacceptable, leading to the directive for immediate clearance of the goods and the payment of costs by the respondents.
4. Finally, the judgment concludes by directing the respondents to pay the costs of the petition. The court emphasized that there was no obligation on the petitioner or their advocates to inform the respondents of the court's order, as they were represented through counsel. The court also allowed the hearing on the Query Memo to proceed without setting a specific time limit, instructing the respondents to act in accordance with the law.
This detailed analysis covers the various issues addressed in the judgment, highlighting the court's directives and findings regarding compliance with court orders, delay in passing orders, instructions given to the respondent's representative, and the payment of costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 101
Issues Involved: Classification of "Stamping Foil" under Tariff Item 15A(2) versus Tariff Item 68 for Excise duty purposes.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Stamping Foil:
The petitioner company argued that "Stamping Foil," a polyester film metallized and lacquered with added dyes, should be classified under Tariff Item 15A(2). This item covers "articles made of plastics, all sorts," including foils, sheets, and other shapes. The respondents, however, contended that stamping foil is a different product resulting from a manufacturing process and should be classified under the residuary Tariff Item 68, which covers "all other goods, not elsewhere specified."
2. Historical Context and Previous Rulings:
In 1972, the respondents initially attempted to levy Excise duty on metallized and lacquered films under Tariff Item 15A(2). The petitioner challenged this, leading to a statement from the respondents that the petitioner's products did not attract further Excise duty under Item 15A(2) as the necessary duty had already been paid on the plain polyester/PVC/Acetate films. This statement was produced as evidence (Annexure "A").
3. Trade Notices and Departmental Correspondence:
In 1975, the Superintendent of Central Excise sought information on decorative articles produced by the petitioner, potentially classifiable under Tariff Item 68. A Trade Notice issued in 1978 classified "stamping foils" made from duty-paid films under Tariff Item 68. The petitioner contended that stamping foils, being articles of plastic, should fall under Item 15A(2) and not Item 68.
4. Legal Arguments and Submissions:
During the hearing, the petitioner's advocate argued that stamping foil should be covered under Tariff Item 15A(2) due to its nature as a plastic article. The respondents' advocate argued that stamping foil is a new product resulting from a manufacturing process and should be classified under Item 68. Alternatively, even if considered under Item 15A(2), the petitioner should pay Excise duty as it is a new product.
5. Examination of Tariff Items:
The court examined the relevant parts of Tariff Item 15A and Item 68. Tariff Item 15A(2) includes "articles made of plastics, all sorts," explicitly covering foils. The court noted that stamping foils, being metallized and lacquered polyester films, are plastic articles and thus fall under Item 15A(2). The court found no reason to exclude stamping foils from this item, as they are not covered by the exclusions in Explanation II of Item 15A(2).
6. Supporting Precedents:
The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Superintendent of Central Excise v. Vac Met Corpn. Pvt. Ltd., which held that metallic yarn made from metallized polyester falls under Tariff Item 15A(2). The court agreed with this interpretation, reinforcing that plastic articles, including foils, are covered by Item 15A(2).
7. Conclusion on Classification:
The court concluded that stamping foils fall under Tariff Item 15A(2) and not the residuary Item 68. The court emphasized that it is against the principle of classification to consign an article to the residuary clause when it reasonably fits under an enumerated item.
8. Decision on Show Cause Notice:
Given the conclusion that stamping foils fall under Item 15A(2), the court found the show cause notice dated 2-5-1980, which sought to classify stamping foils under Item 68, to be incorrect. Consequently, the court directed the respondents not to take any action based on this notice.
9. Refund of Excise Duty:
The petitioner's advocate stated that the petitioner would seek a refund of the Excise duty in accordance with the Act's provisions. Therefore, the court did not pass any orders for the refund.
Final Judgment:
The Special Civil Application was allowed, and it was held that "stamping foils" produced by the petitioner fall under Tariff Item 15A(2). The respondents were directed not to take any action pursuant to the notice dated 2-5-1980. The rule was made absolute to this extent with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 100
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of effective rate of duty from the normal price as per the second part of the explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act.
2. Inclusion of refunded amount in the normal price when the higher rate of duty is initially assessed and collected but not passed on to the buyer.
3. Treatment of excess duty refunded on exempted goods as part of the normal price when the benefit is not passed on to the buyers.
Summary:
Issue 1: Effective Rate of Duty Deduction
The court addressed whether only the effective rate of duty can be deducted from the normal price and not the element of duty refunded by the department, the benefit of which has not been passed on to the buyer. The court concluded that as per the second part of the explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, the effective rate of duty must be deducted not only from the normal price but also from any amount charged and collected as excise duty, but subsequently refunded, if the benefit of refund has not been passed on to the buyer.
Issue 2: Refunded Amount Inclusion in Normal Price
The court examined whether the refunded amount can be included in the normal price in cases where the higher rate of duty is initially assessed and collected from the customers and subsequently on a proper computation of value as per Section 4, the value of goods gets reduced resulting in refund of duty, the benefit of such refund is not passed on to the buyer. The court held that as per clause (ii) of the second part of the explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, excise duty on the amount becoming refundable is leviable if the benefit of such refund is not passed on to the buyer.
Issue 3: Excess Duty on Exempted Goods
The court considered whether the excess duty refunded on exempted goods becomes part of the normal price when the benefit is not passed on to the buyers. The court ruled that where full duty is levied on exempted goods and subsequently, as a result of applying the exemption notification, the excess duty is refunded, such excess amount the benefit of which is not passed on to the buyers becomes part of the normal price, in view of the explanation to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act.
Conclusion:
The Full Bench answered all three questions in favor of the appellants, establishing that the amounts not passed on to the buyers must be included in the value of goods for the purpose of excise duty calculation.
-
1990 (12) TMI 99
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification exempting excise duty on wrapping and packing papers.
2. Allegation of short-levy of excise duty by the petitioner.
3. Appeal against the order of Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector.
4. Explanation to Section 4(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Precedents on the interpretation of the effective duty of excise for determining the value of excisable goods.
6. Decision on the petition in light of the Explanation and previous court decisions.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of wrapping and packing papers falling under Item 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was subject to a Notification exempting duty on specified quantities of paper cleared during a financial year. The exemption varied based on the quantity cleared, with percentages specified in the Table to the Notification.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging short-levy of excise duty for the clearance of paper between specific dates. The petitioner was accused of charging a higher price than the assessable value approved, resulting in a lower duty payment compared to the actual rate.
3. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for short-levied duty, leading the petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Collector. The appeal was allowed with the condition that valuation should consider the actual price charged by the petitioner, deducting the duty element paid and other admissible deductions.
4. The Explanation to Section 4(4) of the Act, added by the Finance Act, 1982, defined the "value" of excisable goods concerning packing costs, duty of excise, and trade discounts. This Explanation aimed to clarify the computation of excise duty payable on goods.
5. Court decisions, including B.K. Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, and Assistant Collector v. A.P. Paper Mills, were referenced regarding the determination of the effective duty of excise for value computation. In light of these precedents and the Explanation, the petitioner chose not to pursue the petition.
6. Considering the Explanation and previous court rulings, the petition was deemed not sustainable, leading to the discharge of the rule with costs. The decision was made based on the understanding of the effective duty of excise and the valuation of excisable goods as per the legal provisions and interpretations provided.
-
1990 (12) TMI 98
Issues Involved:
1. Excise duty payable on removal of goods.
2. Estoppel from withdrawing permission to store molasses in Kachcha pits.
3. Validity of the show-cause notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act.
4. Limitation period for issuing the show-cause notice.
5. Alternative remedy through appeal.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Excise Duty Payable on Removal of Goods:
The primary contention of the petitioners is that excise duty is payable only upon the removal of goods for sale or disposal, and since no such removal has taken place, no duty can be levied. The petitioners argue that the molasses stored in Kachcha pits have not been removed for sale, and thus, no excise duty is due. However, the respondents counter that the storage of molasses in Kachcha pits without payment of duty is in violation of the Central Excise Rules, particularly after the withdrawal of the 1982 circular by the circular dated 1-8-1988.
2. Estoppel from Withdrawing Permission to Store Molasses in Kachcha Pits:
The petitioners argue that the respondents are estopped from withdrawing the permission to store molasses in Kachcha pits, which was initially granted due to the circumstances at the time. They contend that the withdrawal of permission via the circular dated 1-8-1988 should not apply retrospectively to molasses already stored. The respondents, however, maintain that the withdrawal of permission is valid and enforceable, and any storage of molasses in Kachcha pits post-withdrawal requires the payment of duty.
3. Validity of the Show-Cause Notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act:
The petitioners challenge the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 and the subsequent order dated 29-1-1990, arguing that they are illegal and invalid. The respondents assert that the show-cause notice and the order are in accordance with the law and the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The court notes that several factual questions arise from the show-cause notice and the petitioner's explanation, which require detailed investigation not suitable for writ petitions.
4. Limitation Period for Issuing the Show-Cause Notice:
The petitioners claim that the show-cause notice is barred by time, as it was issued beyond the six-month limitation period from the date the duty became payable (1-8-1988). The respondents argue that the duty is demanded as of the date of the show-cause notice, not from the date of the circular's withdrawal. The court observes that the plea of limitation was not specifically raised in the writ petition or before the Assistant Collector, and thus, the respondents had no opportunity to address it.
5. Alternative Remedy through Appeal:
The court emphasizes that the petitioners should pursue the alternative remedy of filing appeals against the impugned orders under Section 11-A of the Act. The court highlights that several questions of fact and the relevance of specific circulars and bonds need to be examined by the appropriate appellate authority. The court dismisses the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to file appeals within one month, which shall be entertained without objection on the ground of limitation.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions are dismissed, and the court instructs the petitioners to file appeals within one month, which will be entertained without raising objections on the ground of limitation. The interim orders granted in these writ petitions shall remain effective for two months from the date of the judgment.
-
1990 (12) TMI 97
Issues:
Service of notices in accordance with Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
Analysis:
The case involved the seizure of three gold bars from the possession of the petitioners by Central Excise Officers. The investigation led to the issuance of show cause notices under Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act. The notices were dispatched but returned due to non-availability of the addressees. They were eventually served after an extension was granted by the Collector of Central Excise. The main issue was whether the service of notices complied with the Act's provisions, specifically the timeline for serving notices after the seizure.
The petitioners argued that the service of notices on 18-5-1985, one day after the six-month period from the seizure, was in violation of Section 79. They also challenged the extension granted without giving them an opportunity to make representations. The petitioners relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the need for safeguards when granting extensions under the Act.
The respondents explained the reasons for the delay in serving the notices and defended the extension granted by the Collector. They contended that the extension was communicated to the parties, although the petitioners claimed they were not given an opportunity to respond to the extension. The court had to determine whether the service of notices adhered to the mandatory provisions of Section 79, considering the guidelines set by the Supreme Court.
Referring to previous Supreme Court decisions, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards when granting extensions under similar provisions in other statutes. Despite a one-day delay in serving the notices, the court held that it was fatal due to the mandatory nature of the provisions. The court criticized the department for not obtaining an extension order in line with the Supreme Court's guidelines, emphasizing the need to understand and implement the law as interpreted by the highest court.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the service of notices did not comply with Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act. The writ petitions were allowed, ordering the return of the primary gold seized from the first petitioner's possession within two months from the date of the order.
-
1990 (12) TMI 96
The petitioner, a detenu under CAFEPOSA Act, sought postponement of gold confiscation proceedings due to being in prison. The Collector proceeded without giving adequate opportunity for participation, leading to penalties. High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside penalties and directing further proceedings with petitioner's participation on 10-1-1991.
-
1990 (12) TMI 95
The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer a question of law regarding the justification of holding seized goods as "contraband goods" based on misdeclaration of value during transportation within India. The question of law to be considered is whether the Tribunal was justified in its decision.
-
1990 (12) TMI 94
The High Court of Calcutta allowed the writ petition, declaring the assessment of imported cable impregnating compound as without jurisdiction. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of excess duty paid, amounting to Rs. 4,40,006.19 with 12% interest per annum. The respondents were directed to make the refund within two months after Christmas Vacation. No costs were awarded, and there was a stay of operation of the judgment and order until January 11, 1991.
-
1990 (12) TMI 93
The High Court of Bombay upheld the acquittal of Bhailal Rupsi Shah and Nathalal Rupsi Shah in a smuggling case due to unreliable witness testimony and lack of corroboration. The appeal by the State was dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondents.
-
1990 (12) TMI 92
The High Court of Madras considered the validity of Trade Notice 197/88, which was later superseded by Trade Notice 156/90. The court ruled that the earlier notices cannot be enforced, allowing for the issuance of fresh notices based on the new Trade Notice. No costs were awarded.
............
|
9911796707
