|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 295 Records
-
1992 (9) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 86 following the Supreme Court decision. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe principles of natural justice and shall grant an opportunity of personal hearing. 7. In view of the above discussion, we hold that turnover tax if paid in accordance with the relevant statute would be deductible from the assessable value in terms of Section 4, even if it is paid periodically to the concerned taxing authority. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector to readjudicate the case in the light of the Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Union of India and Others v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. (supra) and the decisions of the Tribunal which have been referred to in this order. We further order that while readjudicating the matter, the adjudicating authority shall observe the principles of natural justice. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1992 (9) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Finished goods lying in “Semi-Finished Room” ... ... ... ... ..... tic Organic Dyestuff the manufacturing process is completed only after the blending of the goods in accordance with the requirements of individual customers. 8. In view of the foregoing we uphold the Additional Collector rsquo s finding that the appellants had failed to record the seized Synthetic Organic Dyes-tuff which were in fully manufactured state in RG-1 and thereby they had contravened the provisions of Rules 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules rendering the goods liable to confiscation. We, therefore, confirm the order of confiscation of seized goods. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the amount to be appropriated against cash deposit in respect of goods weighing 804 kgs released provisionally to Rs. 2,000/- only. The redemption fine on the balance quantity of 960.5 kgs. of seized goods is reduced to Rs. 2,500/- only. We also set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants. 9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (9) TMI 185 - BEFORE THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS),
Modvat Credit - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... llowing entire credit in respect of the rest of the quantity 18,635 Kgs., since the quantity purchased by the appellant from the above is stated to be only 375 Kgs. vide challan No. 518 dated 13-7-1990. The impugned order has therefore been passed behind the back of the appellant and also without any application of mind. The matter will therefore have to go back to the original authority for a fresh examination. In the interests of justice I set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the A.C. for de novo examination in accordance with law. The A.C. is specifically directed to place before the appellant all the material that he proposes to use against the appellant and also extend an opportunity of hearing in the matter unless the same is waived by the appellant in writing. Since the appeal succeeds on the grounds of principles of natural justice I do not go into the merits of the appeal. ORDER For the reasons discussed above, I allow the appeal by way of remand.
-
1992 (9) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ppellate authority. I entirely agree with the judgment of the learned Judicial Member. I do not think that there is anything that can be added further. The 4 documents on which there is difference of opinion between the two learned Members seek, in my view, to make out a new case for the respondent or make out a stronger case for the respondents. On the basis of the principles set out by the learned Judicial Member in his judgment, this cannot be allowed to be done by the appellate authority. Accordingly, I am of the view that the 4 documents i.e. 1. Statement of Tejmal Gang dated 13-5-1987 2. Statement of Abdul Sattar 3. Copy of letter written by Smt. Nazma 4. Copy of proforma of means and standing. should not be allowed to be taken on record as held by the learned Judicial Member. Dated 28-8-1992 (P.C. Jain) Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER In view of the majority opinion, the application in hand is hereby rejected. (G.P. Agarwal) (N.K. Bajpai) Member (J) Member (T) 8-9-1992
-
1992 (9) TMI 183 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... ce the penalty accordingly and sustain a penalty of Rs. 500/- on this score. 7. Now coming to the major issue with regard to demand for Rs. 52,455.79 (repeated twice by the Addl. Collector) we agree that in terms of the provisions of Rule 57H (2), the bar regarding the payment of duty on or before 31-1-1986 is applicable only in respect of inputs which are notified under the Modvat scheme for the first time. The bar is not applicable, where the inputs are eligible for credit under any rule or notification prior to 1-3-1986. In this case both nickel and nickel salt, being classified under Tariff Item 68 and the benefit of Rule 56A was available to the Tariff Item 68 even before 1-3-1986, the bar envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 57H is not applicable. The Additional Collector rsquo s demand both under Section 11A read with Rule 9(2) as well as under Rule 57H is required to be set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with consequential relief where called for.
-
1992 (9) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Loss or destruction of goods due to fire ... ... ... ... ..... for more assistance from the other immediate available sources, and assistance started reaching the site from 3.40 PM onwards from KPT, IFFCO, Gandhidham Nagarpalika, Anjar, Bhuj Municipality and Bhuj airport, Jamnagar etc. With all these fire fighting services, the fire could be controlled only at 8.00 AM on 2-3-1985 rdquo . 5. In the light of the above documentary evidence we are of the view that there has been no negligence on the part of the appellants. The adjudicating authority to our minds, has erred in attributing negligence/default to the appellants, as his finding is based on an incorrect premise, viz. that the appellants rsquo unit did not have fire fighting equipment. We are satisfied on the basis of the available documents that the appellants are not guilty of negligence or default and, therefore, we hold that the appellants are eligible to the benefit of paragraph 9(a) of Notification 77/80. 6. In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (9) TMI 181 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... 88 was made known to the Assistant Collr. in the C.L. of that date and the Asstt. Collector, has also approved it. He is the authority to receive the MODVAT declaration also. Hence, we are unable to see any element of suppression on this score. Delay in filing of RT 12 returns is explained on account of the non-availability of records having been taken away by Income-Tax authorities. We can appreciate that the Deptt. could plead this as a valid argument for going beyond 6 months, if they had issued the demand within a period of six months from the date of filing the return. Even this is not reported to have been done. In any case, when the availment of MODVAT benefit was not suppressed from Deptt., as is clearly evident from the C.L. dated 26-4-1988 and also in their covering letter of the same date, the extended period is not available The penalty imposed is also not justified. 6. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order, with consequential relief.
-
1992 (9) TMI 180 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... ted. 11. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Collector, that benefit of Rule 57F(2) is not available to lead waste and scarp removed for reconversion in ingots, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 12. As such, the demand of duty, even if within the period of limitation, could not have been sustained. 13. It may however be made clear that the aforesaid observation is made on the assumption that the waste and scrap removed were only for the purpose of reconversion into ingots and full and complete account thereof exists. 14. When, in view of the finding as above, there is no evasion or intended evasion of duty, no penal liability could be attributed to the appellants. The penalty imposed by the authority below is solely on account of evasion of duty. In those circumstances, the same also cannot be sustained, and is also set aside. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the authority below is set aside. Consequential relief, if any, to follow.
-
1992 (9) TMI 179 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ings given by the authorities below, cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the above-said decision, we are of opinion that there are no want of bonafides and the Customs are bound by their past practices and when the appellants imported the goods in question in view of that past practice followed by the Custom House, it cannot be said that the imports are unauthorised. In that view of the matter, we set aside the orders of confiscation of the goods in question on the above ground. 9. In Appeal No. C-199/88, the learned Adjudicating authority had stated that the appellants had not produced ITC Licences for the goods valued at Rs. 49,400.00. But now it is seen that the appellants had already produced REP Licences to the Appraising Section of the Custom House and the goods are all released in view of the production of REP Licences. On that ground the confiscation of those goods cannot be upheld. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1992 (9) TMI 178 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay - Predeposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... .S.T. Industries, Hyderabad rsquo , reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 59 the issue has been decided in favour of the Revenue. Be that as it may, on going through the Balance Sheet we find that the petitioner has to receive a very substantial amount (over Rs. 3 crores) by way of loans and advances from various persons and the amounts are due from various Electricity Boards. Taking note of the lock-out and also the closure of the factory and the further fact of its being declared as sick and also keeping in mind that a large amount is in store which is to be received by the petitioner from various Electricity Boards, as reflected by the Balance Sheet produced before us, we grant waiver of the pre-deposit to the petitioner for the present subject to the petitioner making over the amount as and when the payment is received from the Electricity Boards. 4. The appeal being a Special Bench matter the papers are transferred to the Central Registry, CEGAT, New Delhi for disposal on merits.
-
1992 (9) TMI 177 - ITAT PUNE
Actually Allowed, Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... pointed out that the word remuneration used in clause (c) need not take its colour from the same expression used in clause (b) of section 40. Therefore, when once commission paid to the Managing Director falls within the purview of section 40(c), there is no scope or warrant for exclusion of the commission for the purpose of disallowance of excess of payment over the ceiling limit prescribed under section 40(c). Therefore, the CIT (Appeals) was not justified in his direction that commission paid to the Managing Director is excluded from the purview of section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we reverse the direction of the CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to apply provisions of section 40(c) and include the commission paid to the Managing Director for the purpose of making disallowance of the excess amount over the ceiling prescribed under section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 9 to 21. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
1992 (9) TMI 176 - ITAT PUNE
Actually Allowed, Capital Employed, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... ny has income not includible in the total income under the Income-tax Act so that the capital employed in respect of such income which is not includible gets excluded in the computation of the chargeable profits. Finally, their Lordships concluded that the provision in Rule 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be interpreted and invoked so as to make deduction in respect of the relief granted under sections 80-I and 80J of the Income-tax Act, so as to reduce the capital base. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and also agreed with the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court holding similar view in the cases of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Following respectfully the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, Karnataka and Bombay High Court and also the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the CST(A) as it is justified in law. There is no force in the ground taken by the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 175 - ITAT PUNE
Expenditure Incurred, Incentive Bonus, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... pended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income is allowable deduction. It would be better to elaborate a little more here in order to understand the dispute properly. The Development Officer is paid salary for doing official duties. Over and above it, he is asked to do business through the agents for the LIC. For doing this business through the agents, he is separately paid in the form of incentive bonus which is besides salary. 16. In the result, the incentive bonus earned by the Development Officer is treated as income from other sources and the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning such incentive bonus reasonably estimated at 25 per cent to be allowed as a deduction from such incentive bonus and the balance is charged to tax. In this view of the matter also, the appeals are required to be allowed for reasons different from the reasons given in other cases. 17. In the result, the assessee succeeds and the appeals are allowed
-
1992 (9) TMI 174 - ITAT PUNE
Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Bona Fide, Delay In Filing Return, Late Filing, Penalty Proceedings, Reasonable Cause, Show-cause Notice
-
1992 (9) TMI 173 - ITAT PUNE
Net Maintainable Rent, Rule 1BB ... ... ... ... ..... income from property provides for deduction of repairs by 1/6th from the gross maintainable rent less municipal tax. Therefore, deduction of 17 per cent allowed by the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty is in order. Inasmuch as a regular assessment has already been made on the deceased for the assessment year 1980-81 accepting the net wealth at Rs. 93,030 inclusive of the self-occupied property under consideration, the valuation need not exceed Rs. 93,030. Therefore, even the valuation made by the Asstt. Valuation Officer, Shri Dhane is not to be taken into account strictly in accordance with clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Estate Duty Act. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the valuation made by the Appellate Controller with respect of building as well as open land does not call for any interference and therefore upheld, as the accountable person is not in cross-objection or appeal before the Tribunal. 27. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (9) TMI 164 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... med by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. The Department has not only failed to prove the concealment of income but it has also failed to act in accordance with the petition filed by the assessee under s. 273A in particular when the Department accepted the income returned by the assessee but imposed the penalty inspite of the assessee making a plea for purchase of peace. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in Sir Shadilal Sugar s case and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Punjab Tyres clearly apply to the facts of this case. The penalties imposed for all the years are cancelled. 16. In this connection, we may observe that as we have held that the Department has failed to prove any concealment of income for all the years we are of the opinion that no purpose will be served by discussing the change in law in view of the amendments made to s. 271(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 1975. 17. In the result, the assessee s appeals are allowed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 163 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... s regard. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under s. 271(1)(c). 19. In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 155/Nag/1988 20. The facts of this case have been discussed in our order in ITA No. 154/Nag/1988 referred to above. For the reasons stated therein, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. 21. In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 169/Nag/1988 22. This appeal has been filed by the assessee. The facts of this case have been discussed by us in our order in ITA No. 154/Nag/1988, referred to above. Since the assessee had offered to be assessed to tax on certain income and since the assessment has been completed in the light of such offer, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) dt. 27th Nov., 1987 in appeal No. CIT(A)/813/86-87 in dismissing the appeal. 23. In the result, the assessee s appeal is also dismissed. 24. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 162 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... haracter, namely, the increase in the share capital, resulted could not, in the circumstances, be held to be decisive. It was under the facts of the case that the Tribunal decided that the expenditure incurred in connection with the issue of share capital was in the nature of revenue expenditure. We are of the opinion that the facts of this case are more or less similar to the facts of Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. s case and as such, we are of the opinion that the disallowance of Rs. 3,500 made by the Assessing Officer was justified. To this extent, the Departmental appeal is allowed. 29. In the result, the Departmental appeal is allowed in part. ITA No. 111/Nag/1992 30. The basic facts and circumstances of this Departmental appeal are at par with the facts and circumstances of ITA No. 110/Nag/92 decided above. In view of our decision given in ITA No. 110/Nag/92, this Departmental appeal is allowed in part. 31. In the result, both the Departmental appeals are allowed in part.
-
1992 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT NAGPUR
Penalty For Concealment, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... regard. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c). 19. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 155/Nag/1988 20. The facts of this case have been discussed in our order in ITA No. 154/Nag/1988 referred to above. For the reasons stated therein, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. 21. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 169/Nag/1988 22. This appeal has been filed by the assessee. The facts of this case have been discussed by us in our order in ITA No. 154/Nag/1988, referred to above. Since the assessee had offered to be assessed to tax on certain income and since the assessment has been completed in the light of such offer, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) dated 27-11-1987 in Appeal No. CIT(A)/813/86-87 in dismissing the appeal. 23. In the result, the assessee s appeal is also dismissed. 24. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1992 (9) TMI 153 - ITAT NAGPUR
Assessing Officer, Investment Allowance, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... not have denied this benefit to the assessee merely because the assessee took the advantage of the proceedings under section 143(2) and filed the revised claim under section 139(5) within the time limit prescribed in that section. We are of the opinion that as the provisions of section 32AB are beneficial to the assessee in this case, the assessee was entitled to file the revised return though the original return was filed under section 139(4) and get the benefit of law. We, therefore, do not propose to go into the various cases cited by both the sides and hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing the assessee the benefit under section 32AB as compared to the provisions of section 32A of the Act. We accordingly direct that the assessee be allowed the deduction under section 32AB of the Act for both the years. 25. In the result, the assessee s appeals are allowed in part. 26. to 31. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor ssues.
............
|
