|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 258 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 124 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... and the general approach of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in such matters, the learned Member (J) had come to a conclusion that the respondents were rightly entitled for the benefit of the notification under consideration. In the special circumstances of this case after taking all the relevant considerations into account, I agree with him. The appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be rejected. Dated 20th July, 1995 Sd/- (Lajja Ram) Member (T) FINAL ORDER 35. emsp In accordance with the majority opinion it is held that the respondents were rightly entitled for the benefit of the Notification No. 229/82-C.E., dated 15-10-1986 as amended, 14/86, dated 7-2-1986 and 188/86, dated 3-3-1986. It is further held that the demand was also time barred to the extent indicated earlier by both of us in this order as amended by Misc. Order No. 8/95-C, dated 21-12-1994. 36. In the result the appeal is rejected. Dated 9-8-1995 Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Member (J)
-
1995 (8) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL - Actual user ... ... ... ... ..... at they were not owning the newspaper establishment. The notification specifically granted benefit in respect of goods to those who owned the newspaper establishment. The Tribunal held that the importer had only a certificate of registration in respect of a newspaper and they did not own a newspaper establishment of their own and hence the benefit was denied. The ratio of this judgment is that the importer should have their own newspaper establishment for claiming the benefit of the notification. The ratio laid down in the judgment has relevance to the present case. The appellants are not having SSI Unit on the date of importation and therefore, the order passed by the ld. Collector for absolutely confiscation and granting the release on redemption fine is justified. We notice that the redemption fine is excessive. Taking into consideration the value of the imported goods, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- with this modification otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
`Waste and scrap’ - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... Court above, in the interest of justice, relief to the extent of shearings and trimmings in the nature of wastages should be extended, for which the appellants are directed to file their claim with the Adjudicating authority. This being a question of fact, the Adjudicating authority may reconsider the matter on this limited point and extend the relief to the extent permissible in the light of the Supreme Court observations cited above. We do not however, consider that for this limited exercise, the order should be set aside and the matter should be remanded . 21. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account, except to the extent of relief as discussed in para 20 above, we find no merit in the appeal in so far as the demand of Central Excise duty is concerned. In so far as the penalty amount is concerned, keeping in view the issues involved, we set aside the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/-. Subject to above, the appeal is otherwise rejected and we order accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... the connected departmental appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune which is registered as E/2000/87-C to the Bombay Bench as the arrangements for receiving appeals relating to classification and valuation matters by that Bench on transfer from the erstwhile Special Benches in Delhi have not been completed and it is administratively not feasible to order such transfer. In the circumstances, we reject their application and adjourn the appeals to 27-10-1995.
-
1995 (8) TMI 120 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... not bound to refer such a question. The conclusion reached by us finds ample support in C.I.T. v. Chander Bhan Harbhajan Lal - 1966 60 I.T.R. 188 (SC), Mathura Prasad v. C.I.T. - 1966 (60) I.T.R. 428 (SC), C.I.T. v. Indian Mica Supply Co. P. Ltd. - 1970 (77) I.T.R. 20 (SC) and C.I.T. v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia - 1980 (122) I.T.R. 38 (SC). When a decision on a point of law apparently does not show any problem or debate on the point, it cannot be a question of law. Even if a point of law does arise out of the decision of the Tribunal but the answer to the point is self-evident and obvious or when the question is of an academic nature or where it has been concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court or the High Court under which the Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction, the Tribunal would be justified not to refer such a point of law. Quoted in Collector of Central Excise v. Jayashri Timber Products - 1993 (66) E.L.T. Page 335) We accordingly dismiss the Reference Application.
-
1995 (8) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Invoice value - Assessment on invoice value ... ... ... ... ..... dng such elements as have to be excluded from the assessable value would defeat not only the very purpose of exemption, but add a burden even more than what the assessee would have suffered had he not opted for the exemption of invoice price. Invoice Price Notification No. 120/75 cannot have the effect of requiring payment of duty on a value exceeding assessable value under Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act. 19.1 emsp An Exemption Notification, if one were to accept the construction otherwise placed on it, would cease to be an exemption and would supplant the very Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act whose rigours in certain situa- tions it seeks to soften by giving relief and, even transcending it, transmute itself into an Imposition something never perhaps expected by those who sought, and conceivably never intended by those who granted, this exemption. 20. In the result, for the reasons set out hereinbefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1995 (8) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI`
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 68. It is also by the same description included in Appendix 5 of relevant import policy under the heading ldquo Insecticides, pesticides, and weedicides, the following - 192 (4) (BIS) Dimethyl Thiocarmoyl Disulphide (Thiram) rdquo . The import licence has also been issued to them specifying Serial No. 192 (4) by description with an indication of end-use of pesticides. It is further of relevance to note that this licence has been accepted for the clearance of the goods which again had been assessed to basic customs duty under Heading 29.01/45 (12) CTA which covered, ldquo Insecticide, pesticide, and fungicide chemicals. rdquo These circumstances do favour classification of the goods imported under Item 68 CET, in the absence of satisfactory evidence to show the predominant use of the material as rubber processing chemical. In such a view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 117 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... be transferred to the South Regional Bench. The notice of hearing for the stay petition was sent to them by registered post on 3-7-1995, which has also been received by them vide postal acknowledgement receipt. It is seen they have submitted that their case is covered in their favour by a series of judgments. A preliminary submission was made by the departmental representative, when the matter came up for hearing on 17-5-1995 that the cases cited by the applicants/appellants were not applicable to the present case. As the issue involved is thus somewhat controversial and as the appeal is of the year 1995, though filed soon after the presentation of the Finance Bill is not covered by the executive instructions governing the transfer of appeals involving classification and valuation to the outlying Benches. Accordingly, the request for transfer is turned down. The stay petition is now posted for hearing on 27th September, 1995. Copy of the order to be served on both the sides.
-
1995 (8) TMI 116 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... behalf. So also the Tribunal has clearly held in the case of Kumaran Krishna Kutty (Supra) that the freight has to be added from the country of origin. This decision itself was based on an earlier decision on the same line in Final Order No. 87/94-A, dated 19-4-1994 in the case of Collector v. Johnson Panthakkan - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 931 . Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) had correctly held that the freight should be calculated from the country of origin of the car where it was manufactured which means in the case it should be from Germany to Bombay. The appellant herein has not produced any evidence to show the freight charges between Germany and Bombay at the material time according to them. This element of value cannot be based on mere theory. In the result on a consideration of the totality of evidence in this case and the judicial pronouncement (supra) it is held that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The appeal is rejected.
-
1995 (8) TMI 115 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... have in a number of cases held that in case the inputs are received prior to the filing of declaration Modvat Credit in respect of the same can be taken under Rule 57A after declaration had been filed and acknowledged by the AC notwithstanding the receipt of the inputs before filing of declaration. In the present case therefore, in terms of Rule 57G, the declaration can be taken to have been filed and acknowledged only on 3-5-1990, the appellant rsquo s eligibility to take Modvat Credit in respect of the inputs which had been received can be taken to have been established with reference to that date i.e. 3-5-1990 only and since the inputs were lying on stock on that date Modvat Credit could be taken to have been available on 3-5-1990 in respect of the inputs which were utilised after that date. In view of above, I hold that in the facts and circumstances of this case, Modvat Credit utilised on 13-6-1990 was also correctly utilised. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 114 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Redemption fine - Judicial discipline ... ... ... ... ..... refully considered the submissions made by both the sides with reference to the difference of opinion. Since in an identical and similar circumstance the quantum of fine has been fixed at 15 by the Bench of the Tribunal in a series of cases and that too when there was a difference of opinion between the two Members on this point the Third Member has also agreed with one of the Members in reducing the fine to 15 following the precedents, in view of the judicial discipline following the precedents I concur with the views expressed by Hon rsquo ble Member (J) in determining the quantum of fine at 15 of the value and accordingly the difference of opinion is disposed of. 16. The case file is returned to Regular Bench to pass an appropriate order. Dated 21-7-1995 Sd/- (G.A. Brahma Deva) Member (J) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the quantum of redemption fine is fixed at 15 of the value. Sd/- (V.P. Gulati) Member (T) 2-8-1995 Sd/- (S. Kalyanam) Vice President 1-8-1995
-
1995 (8) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... n has to be considered as goods within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Therefore, the Collector was justified in holding the item as goods. The appellants have contended that there has been no suppression of facts and they were paying duty in respect of clearances made from their unit at Daitari. They have also claimed Modvat. In the case of Kesoram Cements, the Tribunal remanded the case to the lower authorities to consider the case of Modvat. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to remand the case as there was no suppression for invoking larger period. They are also entitled to Modvat. The matter is remanded to the lower authorities for de novo consideration. In that view of the matter, we hold that the impugned goods are chargeable to duty under Chapter Heading 36.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the question of limitation and claim of Modvat is remanded to the lower authorities for de novo consideration.
-
1995 (8) TMI 112 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Prosecution - Sanction - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... isdiction to launch prosecution. In view of the above, the reliance placed upon paragraph 144 of the decision in Bhajan Lal rsquo s case supra will be of no assistance to the appellant. If there are extenuating circumstances as claimed by the appellant, such circumstances are matters for proof by way of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be taken up for consideration in proceedings. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we do not see any prima facie lack or want of jurisdiction in the second respondent to initiate the prosecution. 14. emsp For all the reasons stated above we do not see any merit in the above appeals. These appeals, therefore, fail and shall stand dismissed. We are leaving open all the contentions of the parties on either side to be appropriately decided in the pending proceedings before the first respondent except the one relating to the competence or jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to launch the prosecution in question.
-
1995 (8) TMI 111 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... was justified in treating the non-refundable and refundable deposits as loans, and not as income? 14. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding, in respect of various funds like Chief Minister s Fund, Hutment Fund, Small Savings Scheme, Y.B. Chavan Memorial Fund, etc., that the assessee acted as an agent and collections were made as per the directions of the State Government. For spending them on the purposes specified by the State Government and that the collections were made by way of retaining amount of cane price payable to the sugarcane growers and, hence, are not trading receipt liable to tax? 15. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the Madhya Pradesh High Court s decision in the case of Jiwajirao Sugar Co-op. Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 73 CTR (MP) 51 (1989) 176 ITR 182 (MP) in respect of the Area Development Fund and Cane Development Fund?
-
1995 (8) TMI 108 - ITAT PUNE
Business Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... t was found as a fact that the provisions of rule 6DD(j) were not applicable. However, in the case before me, rule 6DD(j) is found applicable. It may also be mentioned that section 40A(3) places no restrictions on the assessee in his trading activities, it only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction claimed as an expenditure, in respect of which, the payment is made by cash and there are no exceptional and unavoidable circumstances. The consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. The genuine transactions wherein rule 6DD(j) also applies, are therefore, outside the sweep of section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the other material placed before me, I agree with the view expressed by learned Judicial Member. The point of difference is answered accordingly and the case will now go back to the Bench for passing consequential order in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1995 (8) TMI 105 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... d not make order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment under section 143(1) in this case in respect of matters which were not subject-matter of proceedings under section 147. The words such income in section 147 clearly refer to the income which is chargeable to tax but has escaped assessment . It does not extend to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Under the circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court disapproved the decision of the Bombay High Court (Full Bench) and held that the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer was confined only to the escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer while adding Rs. 25,000 each for both the years has failed to prove that the same had escaped assessment earlier. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions concerned. 5. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is upheld and the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 103 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Claim For Depreciation, Plant And Machinery, Previous Year
-
1995 (8) TMI 101 - ITAT INDORE
Assessment Order, Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... ). But instead of treating the appeal as premature and not maintainable, the assessment order was inadvertently set aside. It was, therefore, prayed that the order setting aside the assessment may be withdrawn. This application of the assessee was heard by Shri R.K Singh, CIT (A), who was the successor in office, inasmuch as the order dated 9th November, 1990, was passed by Shri KD. Gupta, the then CIT (A). The application moved by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT (A) with the observation that this ld. predecessor had taken a conscious decision and there is no mistake apparent from record. He, therefore, refused to recall the order dated 9th November, 1990. The correctness of that order is being challenged in appeal. 16. The arguments advanced by the parties were the same as in I.T.A. No. 72/Ind./1991. In the said appeal, we have set aside the impugned directions of the CIT (A). That being so, the present appeal becomes infructuous. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 100 - ITAT INDORE
Agricultural Income, Agricultural Land, Assessment Year, Income Tax, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... . In none of the decisions cited on behalf of the assessee it has been held that if agricultural operations are carried on over the residential/ non-agricultural land, then such a land will be treated as agricultural land for the purposes of wealth-tax. We, therefore, hold that for the purposes of valuation of the land, in question, under the Wealth-tax Act, the land has to be treated as non-agricultural. In this view of the matter, the findings of the DCWT(A) that the land owned by the assessee is agricultural land exempt from wealth-tax are not sustained and accordingly reversed. Since the DCWT(A) has not determined the valuation of the land, in question, on the relevant valuation date(s), we consider it appropriate to set aside his impugned order so that he may determine the valuation after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties and the Departmental Valuation Officer. We direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the revenue succeeds and the appeals are allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 99 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
A Firm, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Cash System, Original Assessment, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... isions of section 155. Proceeding on the basis of the reasoning of the CIT(Appeals) himself, such a rejection of the assessee s claim cannot be in the limited jurisdiction under section 155. Be that as it may, in our opinion, the CIT(Appeals) was not right in rejecting the claim of the assessee and distinguishing the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Atma Ram Budhia s case on the nature of the proceedings of regular assessment and the proceedings under section 155. In our opinion, it does not make any such difference in entertaining the claim of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that irrespective of the provisions of section 67(1)(b) and the proceedings under section 155, the assessee can claim the amount as not taxable in his hands on the basis of the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Atma Ram Budhia s case. 7. We, accordingly, direct the ITO to exclude the amount of Rs. 50,000 from the income of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed
............
|
