|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 234 Records
-
1982 (3) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Export Bond - Forfeiture thereof ... ... ... ... ..... esult the petitioners could not export the same in 1968 when the contracts were registered. According to the petitioners by that time the foreign buyers had refused to take delivery of this film with the result petitioners could not earn the amounts covered by these three contracts. There is no satisfactory explanation contained in the affidavit of the 2nd respondent in this behalf. In my opinion, there is no reason to demerit the statement made by the petitioners. If this amount is taken into account then it is clear that the petitioners-producers have complied with the terms of the agreement and they have discharged the obligation contained in the bonds and earned the foreign exchange from the export of the said film as agreed upon. The action of the 2nd respondent to forfeit the bond of guarantee given by the petitioners is illegal and cannot be sustained. Petition must therefore succeed. The rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
`Excisable goods’ do not become `non-excisable’ after exemption — Value of clearances under exemption Notification
-
1982 (3) TMI 72 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Smuggled gold — Seizure — Account books ... ... ... ... ..... xit of the adjudicating authority. In the present case also there seems to be no material on the basis of which an inference could have been drawn by the respondents that merely because the gold concerned was of a high degree of purity it could not have been gold obtained by melting ornaments but could only have been smuggled gold. 15. In the circumstances I am of opinion that this is a case in which the conclusion of the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate and revisional authority that the gold was smuggled gold has been arrived at by disregarding material evidence and thus contrary to the entire material on record. I am, therefore, of opinion that the writ petition should be allowed. I direct accordingly. A writ of certiorari will issue quashing the orders dated 19-10-1970, 31-12-1963 and 7-3-1960 in so far as the eight pieces of gold and the zinc block are concerned. The rule is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD.
Valuation - Duty paid under mistake of law - Time limit for refund - Alternative remedy availed of - Appeal to Supreme Court
-
1982 (3) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Gold Control licence - Cancellation of due to low turnover ... ... ... ... ..... he circumstances, we find that the Collector, Central Excise and the Central Government had not properly applied their mind to the requirement of Explanation (I) to Rule 3(ee) of the Rules. 4. In the result, we allow the petition and quash the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad in appeal (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) dated 2-1-1975 as also the revisional order of the Central Government (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) dated 22-12-1975. We direct that the appellant s appeal shall be re-heard by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad which will be decided afresh keeping in mind the observations made above. The appeal shall be decided at a very early date. The petitioner is functioning as gold dealer under an interim order dated 18-3-1980. We direct that till the disposal of the appeal the respondents will not interfere with the petitioner s functioning as a gold dealer provided the petitioner deposits the requisite fee and makes the requisite application.
-
1982 (3) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Exemption - Steel ingots ... ... ... ... ..... a bit to the excise-duty burden imposed by the non-proviso part of the notification in question. 11. If the contention advanced by the petitioner-firm is accepted and the proviso part of the impugned notification is struck down, then the resultant position would not be of any gain to the petitioner-firm, unless the Government issues a modified notification of the kind which it had issued on 1-3-1974 GSR (72)E , wherein the exemption granted was uniform. 12. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned notification cannot be attacked as being discriminatory merely on account of the fact that the Central Government had tried to club the excise-duty paid on the ingots by its manufacturers and the excise-duty levied on flats manufactured from such ingots and had thereby tried to give some relief in excise-duty to the manufacturer of flats from the ingots. 13. For the reasons above mentioned, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same, but with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Import and Export ... ... ... ... ..... se. The fact that in the other cases, the vessel crossed the Customs barriers of Cochin only after 1-1-1978, a fact which has a material bearing on the leviability of import duty, appears to have been missed by the respondent. Without a decision on the factual point, it may not be proper to have a final decision in that case, including the legal position. The Bombay decisions prima facie support the petitioner s contentions. I direct the Department to examine the case afresh giving him an effective opportunity to put forward his contentions, factual and legal. Till such adjudication is concluded, necessary steps shall be taken against the petitioners in that case. The result is that the contentions in all cases except O.P. No. 928 of 1979 of the petitioners fail. These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The writ petition O.P. No. 928 of 1979 is disposed of, subject to the directions and observations contained hereinabove. The parties shall bear their respective costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Valuation of matches - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... It was next contended by the learned counsel that the policy of the Government as seen from the various notifications issued, does not seem to be consistent. Sometimes, the use of the cardboard boxes are encouraged and the use of veneer boxes are discouraged and on other occasions vice versa, and there is no consistent policy. We are unable to agree that on that ground the impugned notification could be questioned. On the ground that the policy is not static, one cannot question a notification issued under Rule 8 nor can we expect a policy to be static. It will have to vary from time to time and according to the circumstances and economic considerations. In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to hold that the differential duty based on the use of cardboard boxes is not authorised by Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. Accordingly, these writ petitiones are liable to be dismissed and they are dismissed. The rule nisi is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 66 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ppellate Collector has rightly observed that the aluminium powder which is known distinctly in the market and finds a specific use in pharmaceutical chemicals, petroleum and other industries was not the same thing as aluminium ingots. aluminium ingots could not be put to the same use as aluminium powder. The Appellate Collector has further observed, and rightly so, that ingots and powder also have different physical properties. The petitioners have referred to some earlier decision of the Government by which it was held that powdering of Barytes in lump form to powder would not be a process of manufacture. Govt. observe that the ratio of earlier decision did not apply in the present case as each case had to be considered on its merits. While powdering may not amount to a process of manufacture for certain commodities it could amount to a process of manufacture for other commodities. 6. In view of the above Govt. uphold the order-in-appeal and reject the revision application.
-
1982 (3) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Tariff Item 68 - Spices - Mixed ground Masalas are dutiable ... ... ... ... ..... d in preparation of human food for the sake of giving flavour and taste to it. This item, therefore, will not be entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975. In the result, therefore, we confirm the final order of assessment dated 9-12-1980 the provisional assessment having merged into it in so far as levy of excise duty on mixed ground Masalas under Tariff Item 68 is concerned. In so far as the order of seizure of goods dated 4-6-1980 which forms the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petitions No. 192 and 193 of 1980, is concerned, the same have already been released under interim orders passed by this Court on petitioner s furnishing security bond, no further order is required. The Department shall be at liberty to realise the impugned excise dues payable by the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law after giving adjustment for the amounts already realised. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Landing charges are includible in assessable value - `Import into India' and 'export from India' - Custom Duty - Taxable event - Words and Phrases - Canons of interpretation
-
1982 (3) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on the death of Mahant Surinder Nath Puri, any estate duty could be levied on the properties comprised in the estate known as Madra Math properties?
Held that:- In the instant case, the interest of the Mahant who is elected to be the incharge of the property and who is in enjoyment of the property in common with the disciples of the Math comes to an end on his death and his interest of enjoyment in common with other disciples, whatever may be the nature of such interest, does not pass at any point of time to any other person, After the death of the Mahant duly elected, the right to be the in-charge of the property vests in the person who is thereafter elected as Mahant and the right of the deceased Mahant to enjoy the property in common with the other disciples of the Math completely ceases and does not pass to anybody else. In the instant case, therefore, no interest of the Mahant passes to anybody else and the provisions of the Act are, therefore, not attracted. Appeal dismissed.
-
1982 (3) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... particular result, put through a special process. In processing the original article need not lose its identity altogether but some changes are brought into it. When a cloth is dyed, printed and cut into pieces, the original identity of the cloth is not lost but a change is brought about as a result of going through these different processes and the end product is different from the feed-in material. The methods or techniques adopted to convert the plain white cloth into printed and dyed bed-spreads, scarves and garments entitles the business to be treated as an industrial undertaking belonging to the firm of which the assessee is a partner. The assessee is, therefore, entitled to claim exemption with regard to the value of his interest in the undertaking under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. Our answer, therefore, to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (3) TMI 61 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... such circumstances as may be prescribed, reduce or waive the interest payable by any assessee under this sub-section. In other words, the ITO is expected to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and if the assessee is able to satisfy him, he may reduce or waive the interest payable under this sub-section. In the present case, the ITO had not passed any order charging interest under this provision. As noted above, it was only a sum of Rs. 382 which was mentioned as payable by way of interest in Form ITNS-150. If it be assumed that interest was charged on the basis of the tax payable by a registered firm, the amount of interest should have been Rs. 463. Thus, even the basis for charging interest was not indicated in the aforesaid form. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. However, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 60 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... income of the assessee in the financial year in which the assessee was found in possession of the precious stones in question. The ITO has assessed the tax in this case on the basis of the accounting period shown in the assessment return, that is, 25th October, 1965 to 12th January, 1966. In our opinion, this argument is not acceptable. This question has not been referred to this court nor does this question arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In any event, this point is without any substance. The precious stones were seized from the business premises of the assessee on 2nd August, 1966 and 3rd August. 1966, which fall within the accounting year 1966-67, for which the relevant assessment year will be 1967-68. In this case, the amount in question has been included in the assessment year 1967-68. Both question Nos. 1 and 2 are, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear their own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1982 (3) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Mr. Murarka, I further find that a reference under s. 16A of the said Act by the officer concerned, and that too on the language of the section, could be made only in respect of and for the purposes of making and completing a pending assessment under the said Actor only, in respect of the assessment year, for which the assessment is pending and since, in the instant case, the assessments for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73 were completed, prior to the date of the impugned notice, viz., 12th January, 1976, such assessments became final as no assessment or reassessment proceedings in respect of those assessment years were pending under the said Act. As such, the initiation of the proceedings, on the views which I have expressed, and which also get support from the two determinations as mentioned above, was irregular, wrongful and without jurisdiction. Such being the position, the rule should be made absolute and ordered accordingly. There would be no order for costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... of the land and made a profit and as such it was not a case in which it was not possible to determine the profits during the various years the plots were sold. In our case, the situation is entirely different. The total cost of the land to the assessee was Rs. 2,47,723 including the amount spent on its development. Only a part of the land had been sold during the relevant year for Rs. 1,05,700. In such a situation, it is obvious that by sale of some of the plots only a part of the investment had been realised and consequently there could be no question of earning any profit. The principle adopted by the ITO of working out the proportionate cost of the plots sold and determining the amount of the capital gain could not be justified. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be sound and must be upheld. In the result, our answer to the question referred is against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1982 (3) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income, Works Contract ... ... ... ... ..... nd the assessee adjusted its rates on that basis, then there would not arise any occasion for estimating any profit on the value of the materials supplied. For that reason, the Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the ITO with a view to decide it afresh in the light of the observations made. Now, at the instance of the Commissioner, the question indicated above has been referred to this court. After hearing learned standing counsel, we find that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal is absolutely correct. Unless the facts are found, it is not possible to apply the law and in the present case, as noted above, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that fuller facts had not been found and for that purpose they have remanded the case. We do not find any justification to take a different view. Our, answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1982 (3) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... after the fumigation, the chillies concerned could be regarded as a new commercial commodity. In view of this, the said decision is clearly distinguishable. It is not disputed by Mr. Butani, that if we were of the view that the assessee must be regarded as the manufacturer of the said drugs and pharmaceutical products, as we are, it is clear that the income of the assessee attributable to the said manufacturing activity in respect of the respective previous years, which are relevant to the aforesaid assessment years, was not less than 51 per cent. of its total income. In view of the aforesaid, question No. 1 must be answered in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is common ground that the decision on that question, in this case, must follow the decision on question No. 1. The said question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay to the assessee the costs of the reference.
-
1982 (3) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e ITO from drawing an inference that the default was without reasonable cause. A plausible explanation which falls short of proof of a positive fact may yet rule out a conclusion about the existence of the opposite. The facts pleaded by the petitioner called forth a consideration from a single-minded perspective, namely, to find out whether the non-furnishing of the estimate was without a reasonable cause. What the ITO and the Commissioner, however, did was to proceed as though the petitioner was all the time on the defensive, and if the petitioner s explanation was vulnerable to criticism, there was no escape to the petitioner from the penalty. This approach to the penalty action, as we have earlier shown, is singularly ill-fitted to the plain dictates of s. 273 of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly, quash the penalty of Rs. 7,675 imposed on the petitioner by the ITO and confirmed by the Commissioner. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs.
....
|
