|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 274 Records
-
1990 (1) TMI 95 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act for the reason that it is not registered under section 12A(a) of the Act. The ITO could not have arrived at that conclusion without considering appellant s reply in answer to the contents of para 3 of his letter. And, according to Mr. Sharda, that was done on 3-8-87, the date fixed for hearing in the case. The argument of Mr. Kaushik thus does not find favour with us. 13. After having considered the instant case from all possible angles we have been unable to subscribe to the view that the assessment in this case was made on 25-7-87, as purported to have been done by the ITO. It was certainly not made on that date and was definitely made much thereafter. The assessment made was antidated, showing it to have been made on 25-7-87. The assessment was made much beyond the prescribed time-limit and for that reason it was bad in law. It deserves to be annulled. 14. In the result the appeal is allowed and the assessment made in this case is annulled
-
1990 (1) TMI 94 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... fying shares for the balance of qualifying period of 5 years subject to the fulfilment of the condition that the assessee owned such shares at least for a period of 6 months ending with the valuation date. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the objection of the learned WTO that the exemption can be granted only in respect of those shares which were purchased by the assessee directly from the company is also not sustainable. 6.2 As regards the shares of the three companies referred to in para 2.1, the order passed by the learned CWT(A) was perfectly valid as he had merely restored the matter back to the WTO for examining the evidence submitted by the assessee to determine the eligibility of those shares for the purpose of exemption under section 5(1)(xxa). 6.3 In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the CWT(A) was perfectly valid and does not require any interference. 7. In the result, the revenue s appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (1) TMI 93 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Additional Evidence, Deduction In Respect, Travelling Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... submissions and have also gone through the order passed by the learned CIT (A). This point has been discussed by the CIT (A) in para 7 of the order which is reproduced hereunder (7) The next ground of appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 52908 made u/s. 40A (5) of the Act. According to appellant, the IAC was not justified in taking (a) Medical Reimbursement expenses (b) L.T.C. (as per rules of the company), (c) H.R.A. (d) P.F. contribution as perquisites of employees for section 40A(5). The appellant is correct in this respect. I hold that these items from (a) to (d) are to be excluded for making calculations u/s. 40A(5) of the Act. After this is done, according to the appellant s calculation, disallowance is reduced to Rs. 15,646. The IAC (A) is, accordingly directed to verify the calculation of the said disallowance. We agree with the reasons and conclusions derived by the CIT (A) and confirm his order with regard to ground No. 3. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1990 (1) TMI 92 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that the scheme of incentive bonus showed that the payment to the assessee was salary cum-bonus. He relied upon the decision in L. Jeewanlal vs. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 223 (All) which had laid down certain criteria for this purpose. He also relied upon the decision in CIT vs. India Radiators Ltd. (1976) 105 ITR 680 (Mad) and submitted that bonus was part of salary. According to him, the scheme showed that it was applicable only to a Development Officer and if the assessee s services were terminated as a Development Officer he would not get the bonus. 3. There is substance in the arguments put forward by the learned Departmental Representative and it seems that he has taken considerable pains to support the Revenue s case. However, in view of the said decision of Tribunal relied upon by the assessee s Advocate I hold that the deduction of 40 percent claimed by the assessee cannot be disallowed particularly because the decisions are of Division Benches. 4. The appeals are allowed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Valuation - Principal and agent ... ... ... ... ..... he agreement was not at arm s length. The facts of this case are quite different and, therefore, obviously the said judgment cannot help the respondents. 6.In the result this petition is allowed. The impugned order being order in Original No. 2/80 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Division I, Vadodara on 31-12-1980 is set aside and the respondents are directed to recover excise duty from the petitioner with respect to the goods manufactured by the petitioner-company under the agreement for M/s. Colgate Palmolive and delivered to M/s. Colgate Palmolive during the period the agreement subsisted between the parties on the basis of the Price-List filed by the petitioner-company. In case the respondents have recovered more duty than payable under the order of this court, then the respondents shall refund the same to the petitioner-company within four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Related persons ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 750/- as expenses for sale, distribution and servicing of tractors. 14. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside. The petition succeeds with costs. 15. It is not disputed that after the dismissal of their revision petition, the petitioners were forced to deposit various amounts on different dates as shown in Annexure P to the main petition, by way of excise duty, which in fact was not legally due. 16. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications for refund of this amount but the same was rejected. In our opinion, respondents have collected, retained and enjoyed the benefit of this amount for sufficient long time without any authority of law. They are bound to return this amount with interest. It is just and proper that the respondents pay interest at the rate of 12 p.a. from the date of collection of amount till the date of actual payment. The respondents are directed to pay the amount with interest within three months from the date of this order.
-
1990 (1) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Writ Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... duty on cotton yarn becomes leviable at the spindle point and, therefore, waste of cotton yarn resulting after the spindle stage and during weaving is not entitled to exemption. By the said letter, no demand has been made and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents made it clear that by issuing this letter, the Superintendent of Central Excise merely brought to the notice of the petitioner that he would be taking action, if the duty is not paid, and that it is not an order whereby any demand of excise duty has been made. He also submitted that even after such a letter, no action by way of recovery was taken in case of non-payment of duty but only show cause notices have been issued. Reading the letter as it is and also considering the submissions of the learned advocate for the respondents, the letter to the petition, is not a demand notice or a proposed action for a coercive recovery. Therefore, the question of quashing and setting aside the same does not arise.
-
1990 (1) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Paper - Dutiability - Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel ... ... ... ... ..... roper notification and/or Trade Notice are binding? The scope of the applicability of the principle of Promissory Estoppel, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, has been highlighted. 8. This Court has gone through the facts of the case in details by looking to the affidavits and materials on record. This Court does not appreciate that regarding the items used by the petitioner, they are entitled to avoid the duties levied by the respondent authorities. The theory of Promissory Estoppel cannot be extended as nothing has been demonstrated before this Court, that the petitioner acted upon a specific assurance and changed their position. Therefore, the petitioner cannot ask reliefs in the manner as asked for. The question of refund as made out is also misconceived. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and in the result, the Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Valuation - Central Excise ... ... ... ... ..... gear and the steel body, should be excluded from valuation for the purpose of Tariff Item No. 34. There is no justification for dissecting this equipment into two parts, viz., tipping gear (tipping mechanism) as being eligible for exclusion and including the integral body, viz , the steel body, forming the container. The tipping mechanism is of no use unless the steel body container is attached to it and similarly, the steel body cannot be used without the tipping mechanism. It, therefore, follows that the tipping mechanism and the steel body which are attached to each other form an integral whole and are entitled to be excluded for the purpose of valuation under Tariff Item No. 34. Hence, the orders impugned in this writ petition are quashed and the petitioner is entitled to relief in respect of the excise duty paid on the value of the steel body. The writ petition, insofar as the valuation of the cabin is concerned is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MODVAT Credit - Promissory Estoppel - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... case whether the powers exercised were legislative, executive or otherwise, nor do we need determine in this case whether the principle of promissory estoppel shall or shall not apply to the executive actions wherein it tends to fetter the executive decision in public interest. 43. In view of the observations made above, the respondents are directed to , permit the petitioners to utilise the credit already earned by them in terms of the Notification dated March 1,1987. If any excise duty has been recovered in excess, than the one payable by the petitioners in terms of the Notification, dated March 1, 1987 the same shall be refunded to the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to any concession or exemption nor they will be able to take any credit for the utilisation of non-traditional oils during the period from August 25, 1989 to Oct. 11, 1989. 44. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed, with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Demurrage - Waiver - Customs - Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... ne has also to keep in mind the fact that the Customs Authorities have not received any amount which has been claimed by the Petitioners. There is also the further fact that there is no provision of law pointed out by Shri Mehta in the Customs Act under which I could proceed to levy the amount of the balance of 76 days remission on Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. In these circumstances, I do not think I can comply with the request made by Shri Mehta and the submission is, therefore, rejected. 22. In the result, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) to the extent that the order passed by the Secretary of Respondent No. 4 dated 28-7-1986 is set aside. Respondent No. 4 will remit/refund the amount of demurrage charges to the extent of 80 per cent of such charges for a period of 150 days. Rule against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to stand discharged. Each party will bear its own costs. 23. At the request of Shri Makhija, the operative part of this judgment is stayed till 19-3-1990.
-
1990 (1) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Excess Production Rebate - Exemption - Fixing up of base clearance ... ... ... ... ..... preciate the stand taken by the petitioner Company that it does not come within the definition of manufacturer as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the Act. It is also not correct to allege that in order to file the exemption, the petitioner has to fulfil certain conditions unless the conditions are fulfilled the exemption cannot be obtained as a matter of course. The petitioner cannot take the advantage that since the sale transaction is not complete by execution of the conveyance although the petitioner Company is running the tea gardens and continuing the business for all purposes there will be different calculations to determine the base clearances. The contention as made by the petitioner Company does not appear to be correct. The challenge of the impugned orders and the Trade Notice appears to be without any merit. Consequently, the writ petition fails. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay is refused.
-
1990 (1) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Exemption to SSI units - Brand name and Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... e contract entered into between BHEL and ACC-Wadi. The details stencilled as stated above by the members of the petitioners associations on the components will amount to use of brand name or trade name within the meaning of Explanation VIII to Clause 7 of the Notification extracted above. It is relevant to note here that till the end of July 1989, the 4th respondent was paying the excise duty on the components manufactured by the members of the petitioners Associations. Only from the beginning of August, 1989, the 4th respondent has changed the mode of getting the components. The effect of totality of all the facts noted above, in my view is that the members of the petitioners Associations are not entitled to claim exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. I accept the contention advanced by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. 9. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Exemption - Estoppel - Excess Production Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... -78 and it was found that in respect of tyre industry certain anomalies and distortions had crept in. Therefore, the relief granted earlier was required to be withdrawn and thus in public interest the scheme was modified vide the impugned Notification. It is to be noticed that apart from a bare assertion, the respondents have not given any particulars or data to support the assertion. In Ceat Tyres s case (supra) it was held that it is just not enough to state that the exemptions were withdrawn in the public interest or that there was a change in the policy because of review of the scheme. We agree with the view of the Bombay High Court. The bald assertion of the respondents that the scheme was reviewed and modified in public interest is of no effect and rejected. The impugned Notification No. 141/78 issued on 14th July, 1978 is hereby quashed. 18. We allow the petition and make the rule absolute. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Import - REP licence ... ... ... ... ..... rt licence, such as the 1st petitioner company, could sell the articles to the actual user. He is entitled to import any article which can go into the manufacture of any commodity in his factory, despite the fact that this import article could not have been utilised in the factory of the original licence-holder. 20. I have not thought it fit to examine other arguments of Dr. Kantawala regarding the procedural impropriety and illegality committed by the 3rd respondent in issuing the seizure Memo. 21. In the result, the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the petition. The petitioners are entitled to deal with the goods as per the terms of the import licence interpreted by me above without any formal order of the lifting of the seizure from the respondents. This order is, however, stayed till 5th of February, 1990. I direct that the respondents shall pay to the petitioners the costs of this petition which I quantify at Rs. 1500/-.
-
1990 (1) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prosecution - Conviction and sentence ... ... ... ... ..... A mandatory term of imprisonment was not necessary under this clause and there is nothing perverse about reasons given by the Magistrate for the sentence he has chosen to impose. 6. In so far as the 1947 Act is concerned, Section 5 does prescribe a mandatory sentence of imprisonment of not less than six months if there be no special and adequate reasons justifying a lesser sentence. But the Magistrate has given special and adequate reasons. Respondent had made no attempt to conceal the contraband in his baggage. He had shown repentance, though after the trial had progressed. The total fine imposed upon the respondent comes to Rs. 30,000/-. This is not a small sum. A greater reason disinclining me from interference is the great interval between the date of the attempted evasion to pay the duty payable i.e. 23-7-1980 and today when the appeal is being decided. It would be unjust to send the respondent back to prison. Hence the order. ORDER Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
1990 (1) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the courts have necessarily to accept what is stated by the detenu or it is permissible for the Court to consider the facts and circumstances of the case so as to have a reasonable view as to the detenu's knowlege of the language in which the grounds of detention were served, particularly in a case where the detenu is a foreign national?
Held that:- Considering cases where while a citizen and resident of the country deserves preventive detention apart from criminal prosecution, in case of a foreign national not resident of the country he may not be justifiably subjected to preventive detention in the event of which no international legal assistance is possible unlike in case of criminal prosecution and punishment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, however, we find sufficient evidence of the detenu having visited this country though on earlier occasions he was not found to have been carrying on such smuggling activities.
Finding force in the second submission and hold that continued detention of the detenu has been rendered illegal by non-consideration of his representation by the appropriate Government according to law resulting in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution; and he is to be set at liberty forthwith in this case.
-
1990 (1) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Estoppel - Promissory estoppel - Exemption notification ... ... ... ... ..... e to time by issuing appropriate notification. Such issuance of a notification is not open to challenge unless it is proved that upon a promise, the petitioner has acted and there is prejudice towards its interest by breach of the said promise. The petitioners have also acted to prove that there will be no undue enrichment by getting the reliefs from the Court. Any additional duty imposed may have been passed over to the consumers and the petitioners cannot take double benefits thereby. 4. Upon careful considerations of the materials on record and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court does not find that the case as made out has been proved by demonstrating the prejudice in the manner as alleged. This Court does not find any merit in the writ petition as such. The Rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. The respondents are entitled to enforce the bank guarantee to realise their dues in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs
-
1990 (1) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refund - Show Cause Notice - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... in the refund, it is hardly likely that the petitioners would cause hinderance in the finalization of the proceedings. 16. In the premise, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, I D O Allahabad is ordered to comply with the directions issued by the Appellate Collector in his order dated 3-4-1982 in accordance with law keeping in view observations made hereinabove within a period of four months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is submitted before him by the petitioner. The Assistant Collector shall indicate to the petitioner within one month from today what further documents or material the petitioners are required to furnish. Thereafter the petitioners shall furnish those documents or material within one month of the receipt of such intimation. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. 17. A copy of this judgment may be given to the learned counsel on payment of the requisite charges within a week.
-
1990 (1) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Refund - Arising out of Tribunal's order - Interest - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... what rate? In Redihot Electricals v. Union of India -1989 (43) E.L.T. 253 the Delhi High Court and in Metal Distributors Ltd., Bombay and another v. Union of India and others -1988 (33) E.L.T. 321 the Bombay High Court awarded the interest at the rate of 12 per annum. In our view, the rate of 12 per annum is quite reasonable. 12. Before concluding we hasten to add that we should not be taken to have laid down as an inflexible rule that whenever there is a failure on the part of the taxing authorities to refund the duty held not to be leviable interest would automatically accrue from such failure without more. Circumstances of each case shall have to be examined carefully before awarding interest. 13. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12 per annum on the sum of Rs. 65, 53, 508.86 for the period 11-7-1983 to 26-8-1986. The petitioner is entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 400/-.
....
|
