|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 185 Records
-
1981 (7) TMI 85
Issues:
1. Excessive sales incentive payment to a sister concern under section 40A(2).
2. Allowance of weighted deduction under section 35B for various expenses.
Issue 1: Excessive sales incentive payment to a sister concern under section 40A(2):
The case involved appeals by both the assessee and the Department for the assessment year 1977-78. The Department appealed against the deletion of Rs. 37,387 by the IAC(Asst.) under section 40A(2) due to excessive sales incentive payment to a sister concern, M/s. Nirankari Auto Engg. Works, at 8% instead of the general rate of 6%. The CIT (Appeals) later deleted the addition, stating that the assessing officer did not consider the cash discount allowed to other customers and that the sales incentive to the sister concern was not excessive considering their purchases and sales margins.
Issue 2: Allowance of weighted deduction under section 35B for various expenses:
The Departmental appeal also contested the allowance of weighted deduction under section 35B for expenses totaling Rs. 36,583. The CIT (Appeals) allowed the deduction for subscription expenses related to obtaining foreign market information. However, the Department raised objections regarding the allocation of other miscellaneous expenses for weighted deduction. The CIT (Appeals) related 50% of the expenses to manufacturing and 50% to sales, allowing a proportion of 9/400 for weighted deduction. The Department argued that the CIT (Appeals) did not sufficiently analyze the nature of expenses for weighted deduction, especially for advertisements and agents' commission.
The ITAT Amritsar upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision on the sales incentive issue, stating that the payment to the sister concern was not excessive based on the circumstances and relationship between the parties. Regarding the weighted deduction for expenses, the ITAT directed the CIT (Appeals) to reevaluate the nature of expenses like advertisements and agents' commission before allowing weighted deduction and suggested a proportion of 9/300 for other miscellaneous expenses. Ultimately, the ITAT partially allowed both appeals, providing detailed guidance for the reexamination of expenses for weighted deduction under section 35B.
-
1981 (7) TMI 84
Issues Involved:
1. Mutuality principle applicability
2. Taxability of receipts from members for lease allotment
3. Taxability of 50% excess received on transfer of lease
Detailed Analysis:
1. Mutuality Principle Applicability:
The primary issue was whether the activities of the co-operative society constituted a mutual concern, thereby making it non-taxable. The Tribunal held that the society must succeed on this ground. The society was formed for a public purpose, namely, to provide housing sites and facilities to its members, and not to carry on a business of purchasing and selling land or earning income from leasing out the land. The society's bye-laws, which stipulate that the land remains the property of the society and is only leased out to members, further support the non-profit motive. The Tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT vs. Shri Jari Merchants Association and the Supreme Court decision in CIT vs. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd., emphasizing the principle of mutuality, which states that contributors to the fund and recipients from the fund must be identical. The Tribunal concluded that the society's activities were mutual in nature and thus exempt from tax.
2. Taxability of Receipts from Members for Lease Allotment:
The second issue was whether the amounts received from members at the time of lease allotment were taxable. The Tribunal held that these receipts were exempt on the principle of mutuality and did not constitute income. The society collected these amounts to cover the cost of amenities and development of the land. The receipts were considered reimbursements for expenses incurred in the betterment of the land, and any surplus was to be used for further improvements. The Tribunal noted that the amounts collected were not the market value of the lease but were decided by the committee based on several factors, including civic amenities and development costs.
3. Taxability of 50% Excess Received on Transfer of Lease:
The third issue was whether the 50% excess received by the society on the transfer of lease from one member to another was taxable. The Tribunal held that these receipts were also exempt from tax. The society remained the owner of the land, and the transfer involved only the leasehold interest. The excess amount received was considered a contribution towards the development and betterment of the land. The Tribunal emphasized that the society's activities extended over two decades, and the amount of lease obtainable from a member varied over time. The 50% excess was seen as a contribution towards ongoing development costs and not as a profit or capital gain. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that these receipts were expectant and regular, noting the uncertainty of when and whether a transfer would occur and result in an excess.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, holding that both types of receipts-amounts collected from members at the time of lease allotment and 50% excess received on transfer of lease-were not taxable in the hands of the assessee co-operative society. The society's activities were deemed to be mutual in nature, and the receipts were considered reimbursements for development and betterment expenses, thus exempt from tax.
-
1981 (7) TMI 83
Issues:
1. Inclusion of a prize amount in the assessee's income and net wealth for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1974-75.
2. Dispute over the actual receipt of the prize amount by the assessee and the validity of the addition made for wealth-tax purposes.
3. Disagreement on the existence and retention of the alleged asset with the assessee.
4. Non-allowance of liability deduction for agricultural lands and tax liability on the added income.
Analysis:
1. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) included a prize amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in the assessee's income and net wealth based on a search under section 132, alleging the assessee had won the prize and deposited it in his bank account. The assessee disputed the receipt of the prize, claiming it was a fictitious entry. The appellate tribunal upheld the addition, relying on circumstantial evidence. However, the tribunal failed to establish the actual receipt of the amount by the assessee, leading to the deletion of the additions for both assessment years.
2. The Department contended that the assessee received the prize amount based on circumstantial evidence, and unless expenditure or investment of the amount is proven, it should be considered as retained by the assessee. However, the absence of concrete evidence regarding the actual receipt of the amount and its retention with the assessee led to the deletion of the additions for both assessment years.
3. The Department's argument that the asset existed based on inferences was challenged by the assessee, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the actual acquisition and retention of the alleged asset. The tribunal found the Department failed to prove the existence and retention of the asset with the assessee, especially given the absence of the amount during a raid on the assessee's premises. Consequently, the additions were deemed unjustified and deleted for both assessment years.
4. Regarding the non-allowance of liability deductions for agricultural lands and tax liability on the added income, the tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The deduction of liability was allowed, considering the discrepancy between the loan amount and the investment in agricultural land, thus entitling the assessee to the deduction of the remaining liability. The appeals were partly allowed on this ground.
Overall, the judgment revolved around the lack of concrete evidence supporting the inclusion of the prize amount in the assessee's income and net wealth, leading to the deletion of the additions for both assessment years. Additionally, the tribunal upheld the deduction of liability for the assessee, considering the discrepancy in investments and loans for agricultural lands.
-
1981 (7) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of remuneration under Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Inclusion of commission in remuneration for the purposes of Section 40(c).
3. Grant of relief under Section 80J of the Income Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Remuneration under Section 40(c):
The assessee, a limited company, paid Rs. 2,40,000 to its managing directors during the relevant assessment year. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed Rs. 96,000 under Section 40(c). This disallowance was confirmed by the Commissioner (A), who rejected the assessee's contention that Section 40(c) applies only if the ITO finds the expenditure excessive or unreasonable. The Commissioner (A) concluded that the remuneration was excessive based on the company's profit and loss from 1966 to 1974.
The assessee's counsel argued that Section 40(c) can only be invoked if the ITO is satisfied that the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable. The monetary limits in sub-clauses (a) and (b) apply only after such a determination. The counsel emphasized the term "such expenditure" in the section, which refers to expenditure deemed excessive or unreasonable.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's counsel, stating that Section 40(c) aims to prevent excessive and unreasonable remuneration. The ITO must first determine the excessiveness or unreasonableness of the expenditure before applying the monetary limits. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (A) had jurisdiction to examine the reasonableness of the expenditure, but on the facts, the Commissioner (A) did not correctly conclude the reasonableness. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner (A) to allow the assessee to present its case regarding the reasonableness of the payment.
2. Inclusion of Commission in Remuneration for the Purposes of Section 40(c):
The assessee alternatively claimed that the commission received by the managing directors should not be included in the remuneration for the purposes of Section 40(c). The counsel referred to case law and definitions to support this argument.
The Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that commission is a mode of computing salary and should be included in remuneration. The Tribunal distinguished between commission paid to partners in a firm and commission paid to employees or directors. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO correctly included the commission as part of the remuneration.
3. Grant of Relief under Section 80J:
The ITO rejected the assessee's claim for relief under Section 80J, noting that details were not furnished. The IAC approved this rejection, stating that the claim was previously rejected for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 because it was an expansion and not a new unit, and profits were not ascertainable due to the lack of separate books.
The Commissioner (A) sent the matter back to the ITO for further investigation on the facts of the assessee's case for relief under Section 80J. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with this part of the Commissioner's order, as the matter was still under investigation.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with the Tribunal remitting the issue of the reasonableness of the remuneration back to the Commissioner (A) for further consideration, while upholding the inclusion of commission in remuneration and the Commissioner's order regarding the investigation of the claim under Section 80J.
-
1981 (7) TMI 81
Whether aluminium rolled products and extrusions can be described as "metal" for the purposes of the notifications dated December 1, 1973 and May 30, 1975 issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948?
Held that:- The only interpretation possible is that aluminium rolled products and extrusions are regarded as distinct commercial items from aluminium ingots and billets in the notifications issued under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (7) TMI 80
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax can revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner when the assessee's second appeal against that order is pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal.
2. The scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Revisional Power of the Commissioner During Pendency of Second Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Sales Tax could exercise revisional powers under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, to revise an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner while a second appeal against that order was pending before the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and selling vegetable oil, had its turnover estimated and tax and penalty levied by the Sales Tax Officer. The Assistant Commissioner reduced these amounts on appeal, but the appellant, still dissatisfied, filed a second appeal with the Tribunal. During the pendency of this appeal, the Deputy Commissioner issued notices to revise the appellate orders, which led to objections and subsequent appeals by the appellant.
The High Court upheld the Commissioner's power to revise the order, reasoning that the statute did not provide another forum to protect the Revenue's interests. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that once the Tribunal, the supreme appellate and revisional authority, is seized of the case, a subordinate authority like the Commissioner cannot claim jurisdiction to revise the same order. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be nullified by concurrent jurisdiction of the Commissioner unless explicitly stated by the statute.
2. Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The Court analyzed the structure of appellate and revisional jurisdiction under the Act. It noted that Section 55 provides for appeals against assessment orders, with the Tribunal at the apex of the appellate hierarchy. Section 57(1) allows the Commissioner to revise orders passed by subordinate officers, while the Tribunal can revise orders of the Commissioner. The Court highlighted that the Commissioner is subordinate to the Tribunal in quasi-judicial matters.
The Court rejected the High Court's view that concurrent jurisdiction was necessary to safeguard Revenue interests, pointing out that Section 55(6) grants appellate authorities, including the Tribunal, the power to enhance assessments in both first and second appeals. This power ensures that Revenue interests are protected without needing concurrent jurisdiction for the Commissioner. The Court found that the High Court overlooked this provision and erroneously concluded that the Commissioner could revise orders pending appeal before the Tribunal.
The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal has the authority to enhance assessments in second appeals, thus protecting Revenue interests. The Court also noted that similar provisions in other statutes, like the Maharashtra Agriculture Income Tax Act, 1962, explicitly prohibit revisional powers during pending appeals, supporting the conclusion that the Commissioner cannot interfere with orders pending before the Tribunal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and quashing the Tribunal's order and the revisional proceedings initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court concluded that the Commissioner could not exercise revisional powers over an order pending appeal before the Tribunal, as the Tribunal's power to enhance assessments sufficiently protects Revenue interests.
-
1981 (7) TMI 79
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the applicable customs duty rate based on the date of entry into territorial waters versus the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry.
2. Validity and applicability of exemption notifications.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural compliance concerning warehousing requests under Section 49 of the Customs Act.
4. Interpretation of Sections 12 and 15 of the Customs Act regarding chargeability and assessment of duty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of Applicable Customs Duty Rate:
The primary issue revolves around whether the customs duty should be determined based on the date the goods entered the territorial waters of India or the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry. The petitioner argued that the goods entered the territorial waters on 7-12-1978, when Notification No. 66 exempting viscose staple fibre from customs duty was in force. The Bill of Entry was prepared on 8-12-1978 and received by the Assistant Collector on 13-12-1978, during the validity of the exemption notification.
The court referred to Section 12 of the Customs Act, which states that duties of customs shall be levied on goods imported into India. Section 15(1) specifies that the rate of duty applicable shall be the rate in force on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry. However, the court concluded that if goods are exempt from duty on the date they enter the territorial waters, no duty can be levied, and Section 15 would not apply.
2. Validity and Applicability of Exemption Notifications:
The petitioner relied on multiple exemption notifications, particularly Notification No. 66 dated 18-3-1978, which was valid until 31-12-1978. The court noted that the exemption was extended through various notifications and was in force when the goods entered the territorial waters. The court held that the exemption notifications valid on the date of entry into territorial waters should apply, and subsequent notifications imposing duty would not affect the goods already in transit.
3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance Concerning Warehousing Requests:
The petitioner requested to warehouse the goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act to avoid demurrage and wharfage, which was refused by the Assistant Collector. The court found this refusal to be without jurisdiction and emphasized that procedural delays should not affect the substantive right to exemption from duty.
4. Interpretation of Sections 12 and 15 of the Customs Act:
The court distinguished between chargeability under Section 12 and assessment under Section 15. It clarified that chargeability arises when goods are imported into India, which includes entry into territorial waters. If goods are exempt from duty at the time of importation, Section 15's provisions for determining the rate of duty based on the Bill of Entry presentation date do not apply. The court cited previous rulings, including Shawney v. Sylvania and Laxman and Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. B.C. Coutinho, to support this interpretation.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the goods were exempt from customs duty as per the notification in force when they entered the territorial waters. The rule nisi was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs. This judgment underscores the importance of the date of entry into territorial waters in determining customs duty liability and reinforces the distinction between chargeability and assessment under the Customs Act.
-
1981 (7) TMI 78
Issues:
1. Whether excise duty should be levied on yarn as unsized or sized.
2. Whether sizing of yarn should influence the levy of excise duty.
3. Determining the taxable event for excise duty on yarn.
4. Refund of excise duty collected on the weight of sized yarn.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether excise duty on yarn should be charged on unsized or sized yarn. The court emphasized that the taxable event for excise duty is the manufacture of yarn, not the subsequent use of yarn. It was concluded that excise duty should be levied on the weight of unsized yarn as sizing adds weight to the yarn, which should not influence the levy of excise duty. This conclusion was supported by the order of the Government of India and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in similar cases.
2. The judgment highlighted that sizing of yarn is necessary for weaving purposes after the yarn is completely manufactured. Sizing is considered a process to prepare yarn for the manufacture of fabrics and not for the manufacturing of yarn itself. Therefore, the weight of the sizing material should not be included in levying excise duty on yarn. The court directed that duty, if collected based on the weight of sized yarn, should be refunded.
3. The court clarified that the taxable event for excise duty on yarn is the manufacture of yarn, specifically at the spindle stage when the yarn is marketable. Composite mills, which have spinning and weaving departments, should not be required to pay excise duty on the weight of sized yarn as sizing is essential for weaving purposes after yarn manufacturing is completed.
4. In terms of relief, the court allowed the special civil applications and directed the respondents to refund the difference in excise duty collected between the weight of sized yarn and unsized yarn. All demand notices issued without recognizing this difference were quashed. The respondents were instructed to refund any money collected based on the weight of sized yarn with interest and were restrained from collecting excise duty on yarn based on the weight of sized yarn. Show cause notices issued for collecting the difference in excise duty were also set aside, and the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the petitioners.
-
1981 (7) TMI 77
Issues:
1. Classification of Homoeopathic injections under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the definition of Homoeopathic medicines under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge to the assessment of duty on Homoeopathic injections cleared by the original petitioner under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the injections should be recognized as exempt from duty under Item 14-E of the Act, which excludes certain Homoeopathic medicines. The respondents, however, assessed the injections to duty, leading to a series of unsuccessful appeals and revisions by the petitioner. The main issue was whether Homoeopathic injections administered by parenteral route could be considered as Homoeopathic medicines for the purpose of duty exemption under the Act.
2. The respondents, in their assessment, opined that Homoeopathic medicines excluded under Item 14-E of the Act do not include medicines administered by the parenteral route. They referred to Rule 2(dd) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which explicitly states that Homoeopathic medicines do not include those administered by injection. The absence of a specific definition of Homoeopathic medicines in the Act or Rules led the respondents to rely on the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to interpret the scope of Homoeopathic medicines. The judgment cited a previous case where it was held that the Act itself did not encompass Homoeopathic injections within the definition of Homoeopathic medicines, making Rule 2(dd) consistent with the Act.
3. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the respondents should have considered scientific works or authorities in the Homoeopathic field in their assessment. The judgment emphasized that the Act and Rules provided the basis for determining the classification of Homoeopathic medicines, and in the absence of a specific definition, reference to other relevant statutes was justified. The court found no legal basis to interfere with the orders of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition, noting the lack of evidence or legal arguments to challenge the assessment of duty on the Homoeopathic injections.
-
1981 (7) TMI 76
The Government of India revised the case regarding the classification of cream wove and maplitho papers used for printing excise banderols. The petitioners argued that the papers should be classified as printing and writing papers, not under a different category. The government agreed with the petitioners, stating that the papers are chargeable under sub-item 3 of Item 17 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The order-in-appeal was set aside, and the revision application was allowed in favor of the petitioner.
-
1981 (7) TMI 75
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term 'yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre' for exemption from CV duty under Notification No. 87/76-C.E.
2. Whether glass filament yarn can be considered as 'yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre.'
3. Determining if the manufacturing process of glass yarn involving glass filaments qualifies as spinning.
4. Whether the impugned glass yarn meets the criteria of being spun wholly out of glass fibre under the exemption notification.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The revision applications challenged the rejection of exemption from CV duty for imported "Glass Yarn of Asahi Fibre" under item 22-F (1) as glass yarn. The petitioners argued that the lower authorities erred in limiting the exemption to spun yarn made from staple fibre, contending that 'spun yarn' includes both spun and filament yarn. They highlighted industry definitions and standards to support their claim that glass filament should be considered as glass fibre for exemption purposes.
2. The central issue was whether glass filament yarn could be deemed as 'yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre' under the exemption notification. The petitioners emphasized that the manufacturing process for both staple and continuous filaments of glass fibre involves spinning, as supported by a Glass Technologist's affidavit. They argued that the process of twisting glass strands into yarn is common for both types of glass fibre, making the impugned glass yarn eligible for the exemption.
3. The Government analyzed the definitions of 'fibre' and 'spinning' from industry standards, concluding that glass filament falls under the definition of glass fibre. They relied on expert opinions and technical publications to establish that the process of manufacturing glass yarn from glass filaments involves spinning, regardless of the type of glass fibre used. The Government determined that the impugned glass yarn, being made solely of glass filaments, qualifies for exemption under the notification.
4. Ultimately, the Government set aside the order-in-appeal and allowed the revision application, directing that the impugned glass yarn be exempted from CV duty in accordance with Notification No. 87/76-C.E. The decision was based on the understanding that the exemption applied to glass yarn spun wholly out of glass fibre, encompassing both staple fibre and continuous glass filaments in the manufacturing process.
-
1981 (7) TMI 74
Issues:
1. Importation of volume controls by a firm under the Indian Partnership Act.
2. Refusal by the Assistant Collector of Customs to clear the imported components.
3. Confiscation of imported items and imposition of a penalty.
4. Requirement of a phased production program for import clearance.
5. Legality of the order of the Additional Collector.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where a firm, engaged in manufacturing electronic and electrical items, imported volume controls which were essential components for their products. The firm faced difficulties in clearing the imported components from the Customs authorities due to the refusal of the Assistant Collector of Customs. The Assistant Collector demanded a phased production program and small scale industries certificate for clearance, leading to a legal dispute. The firm sought a writ of mandamus to release the imported consignment, resulting in legal proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.
Regarding the grievances raised by the petitioner, the court highlighted two main issues. Firstly, the imported item fell under the Import Policy for the period 1980-81, allowing its import under open general license. The Additional Collector's order of confiscation and imposing a penalty was challenged by the firm, arguing that the import was permissible under the relevant policy. Secondly, the demand for a phased production program by the Assistant Collector was deemed legally unsupported by the court, as there was no official notification imposing such a requirement for import clearance.
The judgment emphasized the legality of the Assistant Collector's order and the imposition of penalties. The Additional Collector's decision to confiscate the imported volume controls and levy a penalty on the firm was deemed unsustainable in law. The court criticized the Additional Collector for disregarding a previous court decision that deemed the requirement of a phased production program for import clearance as legally unenforceable. The judgment quashed the order of the Additional Collector and directed the release of the imported items to the firm within a specified timeframe upon payment of duty.
Additionally, the court addressed the issue of demurrage incurred by the imported goods due to the delay caused by the legal dispute. The petitioner requested a no demurrage certificate to avoid liability for the additional charges. The court granted this relief as a consequential measure due to the circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, issuing a writ of mandamus for the release of the imported items and absolving the petitioners of any liability for demurrage charges.
-
1981 (7) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner company can be deemed a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise erred in treating the petitioner company as a manufacturer.
3. Whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Rainbow Ribbon Industries should be subjected to excise duty.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the petitioner company can be deemed a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner company, Remington Rand of India Ltd., purchased typewriter ribbons from M/s. Rainbow Ribbon Industries, which were manufactured as per the latter's specifications but bore the brand name "Remington." The Assistant Collector of Central Excise alleged that the petitioner company stood in a position analogous to a loan licensee and thus should be treated as a manufacturer under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the court noted that the term "manufacture" includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product and that the word "manufacturer" includes a person who employs hired labor in the production or manufacture of excisable goods or engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. The court found that the petitioner company did not participate in the manufacturing process, did not employ hired labor, and merely marketed the finished products with their brand name embossed on the containers and price tags.
2. Whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise erred in treating the petitioner company as a manufacturer:
The court examined the impugned order, which held that the petitioner company was in a position analogous to a loan licensee. The court referred to several precedents, including the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Philips India Ltd. and the Bombay High Court in the case of Ceramics and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd., which held that merely placing orders for goods manufactured according to specifications does not make a company a manufacturer. The court concluded that the Assistant Collector erred in treating the petitioner company as a manufacturer, as the company did not engage in the manufacturing process, nor did it employ any hired labor or have control over the manufacturing process.
3. Whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Rainbow Ribbon Industries should be subjected to excise duty:
The court noted that M/s. Rainbow Ribbon Industries were the actual manufacturers of the typewriter ribbons and were exempted from paying excise duty under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, subject to certain conditions. The court found that the ribbons were manufactured to the specifications of M/s. Rainbow Ribbon Industries without any technical guidance or raw materials supplied by the petitioner company. The court held that the Assistant Collector's finding that the petitioner company should be treated as a manufacturer was without basis or material. Consequently, the impugned order would have resulted in double taxation had the goods not been covered by the exemption under the notification issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules.
Conclusion:
The court made the rule absolute and quashed the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The court declared that the petitioner company should not be treated as a manufacturer within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court also noted that the exemption notification issued by the Central Government would speak for itself and did not wish to give any liberty to the Excise authorities or put any fetters in their way from proceeding in accordance with the law.
-
1981 (7) TMI 72
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the applicable date for customs duty levy.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification applicability.
3. Relevance of Section 12 and Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Application of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the applicable date for customs duty levy:
The primary issue was whether the crucial date for the levy of customs duty on imported goods should be the date the goods entered the territorial waters of India or the date determined under Section 15(1) of the Customs Act. The petitioners argued that the duty should be based on the date of importation when the exemption was in force. However, the Government observed that Section 15(1)(b) specifies that the rate of duty applicable is the one in force on the date the goods are removed from the warehouse. The Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen and others supported this interpretation, emphasizing that the rate of duty is determined by the date of ex-bond clearance.
2. Interpretation of exemption notification applicability:
The petitioners contended that the goods should be assessed at the rate applicable when the consignment was imported, based on the exemption notification No. 59-Cus. I, dated 9-6-1975. This notification granted partial exemption to Endosulfan Technical, reducing the duty to 35% + 5%. However, this exemption was valid only until 31-3-1976, and the goods were cleared on 16-7-1976, when the exemption was no longer in force. The Government upheld the view that the duty rate applicable is the one in force on the date of clearance from the warehouse, as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act.
3. Relevance of Section 12 and Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962:
Section 12 is the charging section, stating that duties of customs shall be levied at rates specified under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. Section 15 determines the date for the rate of duty and tariff valuation. The Government emphasized that Section 15(1)(b) clearly stipulates that the rate of duty applicable is the one in force on the date the goods are removed from the warehouse. The petitioners' argument that Section 12 determines chargeability and Section 15 only quantifies the amount was rejected, as it would render Section 15(1) redundant.
4. Application of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court judgments:
The petitioners relied on the Bombay High Court's pronouncement in M/s. Synthetic and Chemical Ltd. and M.M. Sawhney v. M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd., arguing that the goods were entitled to the exemption as it was in force when the goods entered territorial waters. However, the Government observed that the Supreme Court in M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen and others had clarified that the rate of duty is determined by the date of ex-bond clearance, regardless of the rate at the time of importation. The Government also noted that the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court applied only when there was total exemption at the time of importation, which was not the case here.
Conclusion:
The Government rejected the revision applications, upholding the Appellate Order. The decision was based on the interpretation that the rate of duty applicable is the one in force on the date of clearance from the warehouse, as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen and others. The petitioners' reliance on the Bombay High Court's judgment was found inapplicable as it pertained to cases of total exemption, not partial exemption.
-
1981 (7) TMI 71
The High Court of Calcutta ruled that hinges manufactured from hot rolled cut strips are not liable to pay duties for the intermediary process, based on Circular F. 139/3/80-CX, 4 dated May 1980. The rule was made absolute with no costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 70
Issues involved: Assessment of duty on elevators and escalators under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff, consideration of elevators and escalators as goods, applicability of Notification No. 85/79 for exemption, exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in determining assessable value.
Assessment of duty on elevators and escalators: The petitioners, engaged in the business of erection and installation of elevators and escalators, challenged the Asstt. Collector's order levying duty on the manufactured elevators and escalators under Tariff Item 68. The Appellate Collector differentiated between assessing the lifts as goods and assessing the component parts used in manufacturing the lifts. As the petitioners failed to produce invoices for the component parts, the Appellate Collector determined the assessable value by considering the composite value of the entire product, excluding charges unrelated to lift manufacture.
Consideration of elevators and escalators as goods: The petitioners argued that elevators and escalators, upon complete erection and installation, become part of immovable property and should not be classified as goods. Referring to a High Court judgment, they contended that the contracts for erection and installation were indivisible works contracts, not contracts for sale of goods. The Government agreed with this contention, stating that once installed in buildings, elevators and escalators are affixed and not intended to be moved, thus not meeting the definition of goods under Tariff Item 68.
Applicability of Notification No. 85/79 for exemption: The petitioners claimed eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 85/79, which exempts goods falling under Tariff Item 68 and manufactured outside a factory. However, the Government's decision to not classify elevators and escalators as goods rendered this contention moot.
Exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses in determining assessable value: In the event that elevators and escalators were considered goods, the petitioners sought the exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses while determining the assessable value. This argument was not addressed by the Government due to the decision regarding the classification of elevators and escalators as immovable property.
The Government concluded that elevators and escalators, once erected and installed, become part of immovable property and are not to be considered goods under Tariff Item 68. Therefore, no duty is chargeable when component parts are assembled on-site to install the elevators and escalators. The revision application was disposed of based on this finding, without delving into the other contentions raised by the petitioners.
-
1981 (7) TMI 69
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and enforceability of the tariff value for plywood tea-chest refixed by Notification No. 8 of 1979.
2. Whether the fixation of a flat rate of Rs. 10.60 per Sq. Metre is arbitrary and invalid.
3. The competence of Parliament to enact a law for levying excise duty.
4. The legislative power to impose excise duties and the method of determining assessable value.
5. Excessive delegation of legislative power to the Government under Section 3(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
6. Whether the weighted average method adopted to fix the value is arbitrary.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity and enforceability of the tariff value for plywood tea-chest refixed by Notification No. 8 of 1979:
The court examined the validity of the tariff value refixed by Notification No. 8 of 1979, dated 3-1-1979, under Section 3(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioners, manufacturers of plywood, contended that the refixed value of Rs. 10.60 per square metre was arbitrary and not based on manufacturing cost and profit. The court found that the Central Government has the delegated power to fix tariff values for excisable goods, including plywood, and the notification was issued in the exercise of this power.
2. Whether the fixation of a flat rate of Rs. 10.60 per Sq. Metre is arbitrary and invalid:
The petitioners argued that the flat rate of Rs. 10.60 per Sq. Metre was arbitrary and did not reflect the manufacturing cost and profit, which they claimed to be around Rs. 5/-. The court clarified that excise duty could be levied in various ways, including quantity, value, volume, or price, and it is within the legislative competence to decide the method. The court found that the fixation of tariff value at Rs. 10.60 per Sq. Metre was based on data from leading plywood manufacturers and wholesale prices, and the weighted average method used was a valid approach.
3. The competence of Parliament to enact a law for levying excise duty:
The court reiterated the concept of excise duty as a tax on articles produced or manufactured in India for home consumption. It referred to the legislative power under Entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which allows the Parliament to impose duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in India. The court affirmed that the legislative competence to levy excise duty on production and manufacture is traceable to Entry 84 and is not limited to manufacturing cost and profit.
4. The legislative power to impose excise duties and the method of determining assessable value:
The court discussed the machinery for determining the assessable value for levying excise duty, as provided by Sections 3(2) and 4 of the Act. Section 3(2) allows the Central Government to fix tariff values for excisable goods, while Section 4 provides for the determination of value with respect to each manufacturer. The court noted that the amended Section 4(3) expressly excludes the application of its provisions to goods for which a tariff value has been fixed under Section 3(2).
5. Excessive delegation of legislative power to the Government under Section 3(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioners contended that Section 3(2) conferred arbitrary power on the Government to fix any tariff value, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 3(2) and Section 3(3) provide sufficient guidelines for fixing tariff values and do not confer arbitrary power. The court found that the delegation of power to fix tariff values was necessary for administrative convenience and was not excessive.
6. Whether the weighted average method adopted to fix the value is arbitrary:
The court examined the method adopted by the Government to refix the tariff value. It found that the weighted average method, which took into account prices reported by field formations, price lists of leading manufacturers, and wholesale prices, was a valid and known method for fixing fair prices. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the method ignored the manufacturing cost and profit, stating that the weighted average method was appropriate for fixing a uniform tariff value.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the validity of the tariff value refixed by Notification No. 8 of 1979. The court found that the fixation of tariff value was within the legislative competence, the method adopted was valid, and there was no excessive delegation of power. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to establish that the determination of tariff value was arbitrary or included non-manufacturing costs.
-
1981 (7) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to refund of excise duty paid for the period 1st October, 1973 to 11th May, 1974.
2. Limitation period for claiming the refund.
3. Validity of the Notification dated 1st September, 1962 concerning the assessment of excise duty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Refund of Excise Duty:
The petitioner, a public limited company, sought a refund of excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,09,419.69 paid for the period from 1st October, 1973 to 11th May, 1974. The petitioner had paid excise duty based on price lists that included post-manufacturing costs and profits, which was later deemed incorrect by the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. and Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave. These judgments clarified that excise duty should be charged only on manufacturing costs and profits, excluding post-manufacturing expenses.
2. Limitation Period for Claiming Refund:
The respondents argued that the claim for refund was time-barred as the amendment to the petition was sought more than three years after the discovery of the mistake. The petitioner contended that the mistake was discovered only after the Bombay Tyre International case in 1979, which clarified that duty collected in variance with the principle was without authority of law and hence refundable. The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the mistake was discovered after the Bombay Tyre International case, and the petition was amended within three years of this discovery. The court noted that the petitioner could not be expected to act irrationally by not claiming a large amount of refund if it had known earlier.
3. Validity of the Notification Dated 1st September, 1962:
The respondents relied on a Notification from 1st September, 1962, which provided an exemption from excise duty for plastics, arguing that the petitioner was estopped from claiming a refund for part of the earlier period. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Notification could not prevail over Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which determines the assessable value of goods. The Notification only provided for an exemption from duty and did not concern itself with off-loading post-manufacturing costs. The court emphasized that excise duty is a tax on manufacturing, not marketing, and must be levied on the factory gate price.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the excess duty recovered by the Department from the petitioner for the period 1st October, 1973 to 11th May, 1974, was without authority of law and must be refunded. The petitioner's claim was not time-barred as it was made within three years of discovering the mistake. The Notification dated 1st September, 1962, could not override the statutory provisions concerning the determination of assessable value. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to refund the excess duty within the stipulated time frame. The bank guarantees given by the petitioner were to be discharged.
-
1981 (7) TMI 67
Issues:
Interpretation of excise duty on blended yarn at different manufacturing stages.
Analysis:
The petitioners, a joint stock company manufacturing blended yarn, challenged the imposition of excise duty on the yarn at the stage after sizing, rather than at the spindle point before sizing. The dispute arose when the Excise Department decided to levy duty post-sizing, leading to correspondence and show cause notices to the petitioners. The petitioners contended that sizing was not integral to the manufacturing process of yarn, and duty should be levied at the spindle point. The Government of India, in two separate cases, supported the petitioners' argument that duty should be charged based on the form and weight of the yarn at the spindle stage, especially when intended for captive consumption for weaving purposes. The court, relying on these government decisions, quashed the notices issued by the Excise Department, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The judgment emphasized that the decisions by the highest authorities on excise duty assessment were binding, and there was no contradictory judgment presented by the respondents. As a result, the court allowed the petition, absolved the petitioners from the duty payments demanded in the notices, and discharged the bank guarantee provided by the petitioners during the legal proceedings.
-
1981 (7) TMI 66
Issues involved:
Interpretation of interest accrued on loans advanced to a sister concern, application of mercantile system of accounting, determination of bad debt recovery, relevance of court discretion in awarding interest post-suit filing.
Interpretation of interest accrued on loans:
The case involved a reference under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding the accrual of Rs. 3,37,725 as interest on a loan advanced to a sister concern. The ITO added this amount as interest at 4% on the outstanding loan of Rs. 71,10,000 for the assessment year 1969-70. The AAC, however, deleted this amount based on the fact that no interest had been shown in the books since April 1966, when recovery of the principal became doubtful due to pending litigation and denial of liability by the debtor.
Application of mercantile system of accounting:
The Tribunal considered whether the assessee had maintained its accounts on a mercantile basis or cash basis, concluding that it was irrelevant in this case. Despite the outstanding balance and past interest charges, the Tribunal found that the debt had become doubtful as to recovery, leading the assessee to stop charging interest after April 1966. The Tribunal emphasized that no interest was actually received by the assessee, and the debtor's financial position cast doubt on the likelihood of repayment.
Determination of bad debt recovery:
The Tribunal's decision was challenged on the grounds that the debt should be considered a bad debt only if the debtor could establish it as such. However, the court noted that in cases where a suit had been filed for recovery, the right to interest post-suit depended on court discretion as per s. 34 of the CPC. Citing relevant case law, the court upheld the Tribunal's finding that there was no chance of interest recovery, justifying the assessee's decision not to charge interest.
Relevance of court discretion in awarding interest post-suit:
The court emphasized the realistic perspective in judging the accrual of interest and reiterated the principle that if a Tribunal finds the principal to be a bad debt, it should be accepted unless challenged as perverse. Considering the circumstances and findings, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the realistic assessment of interest accrual and the discretion of the court in cases of pending litigation and doubtful debt recovery.
....
|
9911796707
