|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 271 Records
-
1994 (4) TMI 91 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
... ...
... ... ..... latter i.e. compensation made for services rendered by the coparcener/Karta, then it is the income of that individual coparcener/Karta. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court, the facts of the present case clearly lead to the conclusion that payment of commission was made to the above named two persons for services rendered by them. Such payment is attributable solely to the exercise of their skill, experience and knowledge in this line of business and did not even require any contribution of funds by the two HUFs. The amount in question was, therefore, rightly disallowed under s. 40(b) by treating the same as payment of commission made to the two partners. Since we have upheld the disallowance under s. 40(b) we do not consider it necessary to examine as to whether disallowance was properly made by invoking the provisions of s. 40A(2). The view taken by the learned CIT(A) is, therefore, confirmed. 7. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 90 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Previous Year, Raw Material, Rejection Of Accounts, Set Off
-
1994 (4) TMI 89 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Baggage - Tourists ... ... ... ... ..... inated his contract in a foreign land so long as he does not shift his residence (It is also immaterial whether it is a job in a foreign land relating to sea or ships or other profession). He can always go back and take up new job/assignments which seems to have actually happened in this case. It is unreasonable to deny facilities due to tourists in such a case. It is accordingly held that the applicant was entitled to TBRE facility and, therefore, levy of Customs duty in respect of the goods was erroneous. Since, now the goods have been exported and de facto compliance with the requirement of TBRE made - even though it was not issued - the applicant is entitled to refund of full duty collected from him. In the circumstances, the erroneous levy of duty to the extent impugned items are re-exported is ordered to be refunded (after Asstt. Collector verifies that the goods have in effect been so re-exported). 5. The revision application is disposed of accordingly in above terms.
-
1994 (4) TMI 88 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Gold imported ... ... ... ... ..... d dutiability on import of gold by NRIs and other Indians entitled to bring in gold upto 5 Kgs. Nay, Government (Board) instructions dated 22-4-1992 were even before the revisionary authority having been pleaded by the applicant Collector who sought review of the order-in-appeal in that case. The decision of the revisionary authority in that case has not so far been challenged or stayed. Therefore, so far as the Collectors (Appeal) are concerned they are bound by the order-in-revision of Kamlesh Kumar. And they have to independently address themselves to the question whether option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 be given in a case or not particularly the one involving a passenger who is otherwise qualified to bring in gold. 5. For the aforesaid reasons and even otherwise as the impugned order-in-appeal has merged in the order-in-revision dated 28-2-1994 the proposal from the Collector (Judicial) Delhi is rejected in limine. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Undue hardship - Joint liability ... ... ... ... ..... n of financial hardship in depositing the amount but was swayed away by the fact that the companies were making very small profits and observed that in case the pre-deposit of the entire amount was insisted upon, undue financial hardship would be caused to the companies. The question whether it would cause financial hardship to the petitioner was not considered by the respondent No. 3. Merely because the company is making less profits and that the payment will cause hardship, it is not proper the petitioner alone should pay the amount. In our view if the whole amount is directed to be paid by the petitioner, it would cause undue hardship to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we direct the third respondent not to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner for non-compliance of the Section 35F of the Act provided the petitioner deposits one half of the amount in demand within four weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Confiscation - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... thority very rightly held that the import of Sodium Vapour Lamps squarely falls within the expression consumer goods . It is not in dispute that if Sodium Vapour Lamps are consumer goods, then the additional licence dated October 11, 1984 offered by the petitioners in respect of import of lamps was not valid and the import was without any licence. The adjudicating authority was therefore perfectly justified in directing confiscation of the goods and in view of the clearance of the goods in pursuance of the order of this Court, imposing fine in lieu of order of confiscation. In our judgment, the two orders dated February 4, 1986 and February 13, 1986, copies of which are annexed at Exhs M and N respectively to the petition, do not suffer from any infirmity and the petition must fail. 8.Accordingly, rule is discharged with costs. In case the amount of fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority in both the cases is not yet paid, then the same shall be paid forthwith.
-
1994 (4) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Seizure - Reasonable belief - Import - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... vered by the licence granted by a statutory authority, the Customs Collector had no jurisdiction to order their confiscation or impose the penalty. 26.In Baba Gopal Das Bedi v. Union of India (AIR 1982 Patna 152), this Court observed that seizure besides being an inroad on fundamental right of a citizen also adversely affects the reputation of the person and should not be casually made. 27.Having, thus, given my anxious consideration to the contentions made, on the materials brought on record, I am constrained to hold that so called belief of the officials was at the most mere suspicion, far away from belief which could be said to be reasonable. The condition precedent for the exercise of power under Section 110 of the Customs Act being absent, the impugned seizure cannot be said to be in accordance with law. 28.In the result, these applications are allowed. The seizure of the goods, namely, cloves and Javitri is quashed. The parties shall, however, bear the costs themselves.
-
1994 (4) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Remission of duty - Destruction of goods unfit for human consumption ... ... ... ... ..... it was unfit for human consumption. The requirements of the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, were, therefore, complied with. In the circumstances of the case, the Department cannot take advantage of its own wrong by now claiming duty and penalty from the petitioner on the goods so destroyed. In such circumstances the petitioners could legitimately expect that the Central Excise Department agreed that the goods were unfit for human consumption and did not attract any excise duty. 9.In such circumstances, the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of alternate remedy. The petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed. The impugned show cause notice is quashed and the respondents are restrained from claiming any duty or penalty on the 5886 trays of Great Shake of Soya Milk, destroyed as unfit for human consumption by the petitioners. There shall be no orders as to costs. Security deposit, if any, be refunded after verification.
-
1994 (4) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT
Manufacture - Cotton fabrics - Processing ... ... ... ... ..... sing the fabrics through rollers fitted with the aforesaid Soaping Machine. 4.In our opinion the said process cannot be said to be one which results in changing the identity of the cloth which is subject to the said treatment and the said process does not give rise to a new product which is marketable. The said process cannot, therefore, be regarded as a manufacturing process. We find that the Central Government itself, in another matter relating to M/s. Premier Tyres Ltd. has passed an Order on 17-5-1977 (page 83 of Paper Book) wherein, it has been held that the transformation brought about the dipping of cotton fabrics in a soap solution is not a permanent one it is not an operation which results in the production of a new article which could be bought and sold as such in the market. 5.The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order passed by the Central Government is set aside and the order of the Appellate Collector dated 3-3-1975 is restored. No Order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Refund claim not filed in prescribed form ... ... ... ... ..... E/5521/91-A and the connected appeals, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b)Within one month from the date of the order of the Tribunal, the request of the respondent/writ petitioner for refund, if it becomes necessary as it depends upon the order of the CEGAT, shall be considered. If the application submitted by the respondent/writ petitioner is not in the prescribed form, it is now open to it to make such an application and the application for refund shall be considered in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Act. (c)If for any reason, neither the appeal nor the application for refund is considered and disposed of within 3 months, as stated above, the respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to interest from today at 12 on the amount, which will be found refundable. If on the contrary it is disposed of, there will be no liability to pay the interest. 6.The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... and on the basis of allegations, on which the complaint was lodged, it was held that the department was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants had clandestinely removed the goods in question. The operative part of the order dated January 25, 1993 passed by the Appellate Tribunal reads thus - In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the ratio of the decisions cited (supra), we hold that the department was not justified in arriving at the conclusion that the appellants have clandestinely removed the goods in question based upon the figures furnished to the Department of Industries. 4.Once the core allegations giving rise to the complaint and summoning order have been knocked out, no occasion, thus, arises to carry on with the prosecution of petitioners which has necessarily to result in acquittal. That in itself is enough to quash the complaint and summoning order, subject matter of present petition. Ordered accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... not only from the normal price but also from any amount charged and collected as excise duty, but subsequently refunded, if the benefit of refund has not been passed on to the buyer. As per clause (ii) of the second part of the explanation to(2) Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act, in cases where the higher rate of duty is initially assessed and collected from the customers by a manufacturer and paid to the Government and subsequently on a proper computation, the excise duty gets reduced and becomes refundable to the manufacturer, excise duty on the amount so becoming refundable is leviable, if the benefit of such refund is not passed on to the buyer. As noticed earlier, so far as the competency of the second-respondent is concerned, I have in my order dated 17-11-1992 in W.P. No. 567 of 1984 sustained the power in the respondent-department. Consequently, applying the ratio of the above two decisions, these Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (4) TMI 79 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rate of duty - Customs ... ... ... ... ..... the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, I find no justification for the respondents in revising the said assessment to customs duty by the impugned notice of demand dated 14th January, 1986 which was further confirmed by the impugned order dated 11th August, 1986. In the result this application is allowed. The impugned notice of demand dated 14th January, 1986 and the subsequent confirmatory order dated 11th August, 1986 are set aside and quashed being without jurisdiction, illegal and invalid in view of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ramniwas Chaudhury s case (supra). The petitioners will be entitled to refund of the excess amount paid. The respondents are directed to pay the excess amount, if any, realised by them to the petitioner within 6 weeks from the date of the communication of this order. There will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned to act on a signed xerox copy of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking.
-
1994 (4) TMI 78 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Modvat credit - Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy
... ... ... ... ..... d counsel for the petitioners has no force at all. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not submitted before us, and in our view rightly so, that the principle of estoppel can be invoked in the matter of withdrawing benefit of modvat scheme for there cannot be any enforceable promise in withdrawing a benefit once granted, as it is purely a policy matter of the Government or law enforcing agency. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, we answer the issue arising for the decision in this case holding that tool kits which are bought out items and are supplied along with motor vehicle chassis by the petitioners at the request of its customers cannot be treated as inputs for the purpose of availing the benefit of modvat credit, under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. 25. In the result, the writ application stands dismissed but without any cost. Sd/- (Dr. Mukundkam Sharma) 26. Judgment per Choudhary S.N. Mishra, J. . -I agree. Sd/- (Choudhary S.N. Mishra)
-
1994 (4) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... vocate is concerned, there is ample evidence to show that he purchased the bank draft for Rs. 200/- on 2-11-1991 from the Canara Bank and this shows that the advocate took sufficient steps to have the appeal filed in time. The only mistake was that he did not check up whether his peon had filed the appeal papers in the CEGAT. In our opinion, the CEGAT ought to have accepted the above-said explanation of the advocate. So far as the alleged negligence and laches of the advocate are concerned, we are of the view that there is again sufficient explanation for condoning the delay. In fact in hardly a month, the party was contacted, the record was rebuilt and then the appeal was filed. We are, therefore, of the view that the CEGAT erred in condoning the delay. The writ petition is allowed and the order of CEGAT is quashed and the delay in filing, is condoned. The CEGAT is directed to register the appeal, provided the petitioner satisfies the other conditions required under the law.
-
1994 (4) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Appellate Tribunals - Piecemeal disposal of matters - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... occasions, the reasoned order is being released after the time for compliance with the directions contained in the operative part of the order has expired. This is causing considerable inconvenience to the parties as well as to the Revenue where the parties desire to file a Writ Petition. 8.The Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this question earlier when some High Courts were passing orders in regard to the operative portion and were releasing the reasoned orders subsequently. The Supreme Court deprecated such a practice. When the above said directive of the Supreme Court is applicable to the High Courts, it follows a fortiori that even the Tribunals are bound by such a declaration and direction of the Supreme Court. We would, therefore, appreciate if in future, the Tribunal furnishes its entire order as soon as it is ready, rather than pass two orders - one containing the operative portion and the other containing reasons. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT
Drugs - Silicones - Exemption - Object and effect - Classification of goods - Residuary tariff entry - Interpretation of taxing statute - Appeal to Supreme Court
-
1994 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant is entitled to the exemption from such portion of excise duty as has been spelt out in Notification No. 108/81-Central Excises, dated 24-4-1981 read with Notification No. 83/84-Central Excises, dated 2-4-1984 and 214/84-Central Excises, dated 9-11-1984?
Held that:- What had been stated in the notification of 9th November, 1984 cannot relate to the notification of April, 1984. We would add that granting of exemption to the paper board from 2nd April, 1984 does not suffer from any irrationality or discriminatory treatment. So, no case for our interference with the impugned judgment of CEGAT, in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution, has been made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed
-
1994 (4) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Notification No. 184-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 does not provide for deduction of the value of packages from the invoice value of imported P.V.C. and that the Notification merely saves the duty/additional duty leviable separately on the said packages, which too are deemed in law to have been imported?
Held that:- It may, however, be that taxing of packing material twice, once at the rate applicable to the contents and then at the rate applicable to container, which would be the result if levy of duty on packing material were not to be exempted, may appear harsh, but it cannot be said to be illegal. What should be taxed is a matter not to be decided by the courts, but by appropriate instrumentalities of functionaries. We are inclined, on a balance of several factors, to accept the interpretation placed by the Revenue. The Notification is designed to exempt levy of duty/additional duty on the packages separately, since in law there is also an import of packages and such import too is subject to I.T.C. restrictions. The interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on Notification No. 184 is the correct one and warrants no interference at our hands. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1994 (4) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Hybrid System, Income Tax Authorities, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... gment of the Supreme Court does not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer question No. 1, as reframed by us and as set out above, in the affirmative and hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest shown in the memorandum record by the assessee in the relevant previous years was not liable to inclusion in the assessee s total income having regard to the provisions of sections 28 and 145 of the Act. The said question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the answer to question No. 1 being in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to examine the controversy involved in question No. 2 (originally numbered as question No. 1) and decide the same. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. In the result, this reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The notice of motion also stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
....
|
