|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 219 Records
-
1990 (6) TMI 206 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng to the exclusion of cutting and transport charges, etc., in proper perspective and allowed the claim of the assessee wherever the assessee have used their own delivery notes in form XX for the transport and disallowed the same in respect of the other items. While so, the Tribunal was not right in interfering with such conclusion and that too in a summary fashion as has been done in paragraph 3 of the order of the Tribunal. The conclusions of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be sustained. So far as the question as to whether the commodity in question in this case also falls within the term timber , used in entry 84 of the First Schedule to the Act, our conclusions in the other tax case equally apply to this case with all force and we set aside the order of the Tribunal on both counts in this case also. 9.. In the result, the orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the tax cases are allowed. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 205 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bout the fruit. A similar idea was expressed by a philosopher who not only interpreted the word but also exhorted for its transformation. Its inherent value has perhaps gained added attraction and publicity when extracted in a studied article in one of the foremost Law Reviews of the World. It occurs at page 1747 of (1987-88) Harvard Law Review and reads (a) Work,-Marx s most durable insight is that productive activity is the life of the species -that work is natural, not something to be endured or escaped, and that the quality of a person s existence is closely related to the quality of his work. What is good work? The adjective that best captures Marx s answer is meaningful . Meaningful work requires skill and concentration ......... The attention of the Government could be drawn to the deficiencies of the departmental functioning and to the message which may be well appreciated by the State. A copy of the judgment will be forwarded to the Government Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 204 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re distinguishable. The decisions aforesaid did not deal with components which went into result in the end-product or the assembled product. 6.. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that angles and panels will come within entry 145 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act before its amendment by the Kerala Finance Act, 1984. The said goods will come only within entry 45 of the First Schedule, as iron and steel articles not mentioned elsewhere in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule . We hasten to add that the legal position stated by us is only for the period before the amendment of the relevant entry by the Kerala Finance Act, 1984. 7.. We set aside the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26th September, 1988, on this aspect. The revision is allowed. The assessing authority is directed to amend the assessment in accordance with this judgment. Petition allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of any textile. In the other decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Vaithilingam 1980 46 STC 297, this Court held that having regard to the entry which uses the expression cotton yam , the product sold by the assessee in that case known as cotton thread would continue to be cotton yam. Thus having regard to the ratio of the decisions referred to above of our High Court, which are very much binding on us, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that sewing thread does not lose its character as cotton yarn and continues to retain its identity and character as cotton yarn notwithstanding the fact that they are sold for being used as sewing thread. In our view, sewing thread is no different from cotton yam and they are one and the same commodity and consequently we agree with the conclusions of the Tribunal, reject the contention of the State and order that the tax revision case be dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 202 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re has to be done to use it as wiper arm blade. That position was not disputed either before the authorities below or before us. If that be the correct position, we do not think that the Board of Revenue is right in treating the articles sold by the assessee as wiper arm blades coming under components of automobiles. On the other hand, the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the reasons given therefor appear to be quite in order. As rightly observed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the stainless steel strip sold by the appellant is only a part from which an auto part can be processed. It is also relevant to note that the cost of the strip was only Rs. 1.60 or Rs. 1.80. No wiper arm as part of motor vehicle can be purchased for that price. 8.. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and restore the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeals are allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 201 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has no jurisdiction either to initiate or to levy penalty even though he was the competent authority to grant registration certificate at the relevant time. The Tribunal failed to note that the Supreme Court never said that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, is the only authority having exclusive jurisdiction to initiate and levy penalty in his capacity as the person who issued the registration certificate initially. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the penalty levied by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal. As we pointed out earlier, the Tribunal did not go into the merits of the case. Therefore, we are forced to remand the matter to the Tribunal for considering the case on merits. Accordingly, the tax case is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. No costs. Petition allowed. Here italicised.
-
1990 (6) TMI 200 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the delay if an application for restoration of the appeal is filed beyond thirty days. Since there is no provision pointed out to us of any power to the Tribunal to condone the delay for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default, we have no option but to dismiss the tax revision case. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred us to the decision of this Court in T.R.C. No. 1 of 1967 dated 11th March, 1970 rendered by Obul Reddy, J., and Ramachandra Raju, J. It is not clear from this judgment whether there was an application for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default or an order was passed in a case where the appeal itself was barred by time and the Tribunal declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. This judgment has no application to the present case. In view of lack of power to condone the delay, we have no option but to dismiss the tax revision cases. They are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment in Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal 1987 66 STC 292 (SC). The details of the facts of the case are not available. However it is seen from the head-note, that the complaint of the petitioner therein was that the statement of one Bankelal had been relied on by the Tribunal, whose statement had been recorded behind the back of the appellant therein and the appellant had no occasion to test the veracity of his statement by cross-examination. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the information collected from the market committee was not put to him. Even after the same was put to him, the petitioner did not choose to seek an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned officer of the market committee. Therefore, this decision is also of no assistance to the petitioner. 9.. In the result, we make the following order (i) The revision petition is dismissed. (ii) No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 198 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n local goods, article 304 has no application When the rate is applied the resulting tax may be somewhat higher but that does not contravene the equality contemplated by article 304 of the Constitution. 10.. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that tamarind is not a declared goods under section 14 of the CST Act and, therefore, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable. But it is not explained as to how in the matter of legal principle it is distinguishable. The special treatment given to a declared goods is found only under section 15 of the CST Act if the restrictions imposed by the said section 15 is satisfied, no further benefit need be extended to the sale or purchase of declared goods . 11.. Consequently, we find no merit in these writ petitions and, accordingly, they are dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. The petitioner is given time till the end of November, 1990, to pay the tax assessed under the impugned orders. Petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 197 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant was not Rs. 3,68,542.83 for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and it was Rs. 1,37,342 according to the monthly returns filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that the rate of tax at 5 per cent has to be levied only on the said turnover relating to the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982. 14.. In the result, we make the following order (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The order of the Commissioner in so far he held that the rate of tax payable on the turnover of sale of gold and silver articles during the period from 1st April, 1982 to 12th August, 1982 was 5 per cent, is upheld. (iii) The Commissioner, however, is directed to modify the order restricting the levy of 5 per cent to the actual turnover of the petitioner as disclosed from the records for the period between 1st April, 1982 and 12th August, 1982 and to take further steps in the light of such an order, in accordance with law. Appeal partly allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 196 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner is really aggrieved in this case with the estimation of the turnover made by the Superintendent of Taxes to the best of his judgment, which according to him is a little higher than his actual turnover. What is sought by him by the rectification petition is in fact a review of the order of assessment and re-estimation of the turnover taking into account the fresh information furnished by him along with his rectification petition. Such a relief, as is evident from the aforesaid discussion, cannot be granted by the assessing authority in exercise of the power of rectification under section 12 of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petition for rectification was rightly rejected by the Superintendent of Taxes and the Commissioner was also justified in refusing to interfere with the order of the Superintendent of Taxes. 10.. The two writ petitions, therefore, have no merit and are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 195 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd price equalisation charge due to Government from retailers and the Supreme Court in that case has held that those two items were never part of the price and that the price in fact was specifically determined under a separate provision of the agreement. So also, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, which is reported in State of Madras v. Baliga Lighting Equipment (P.) Ltd. 1969 23 STC 154, a Division Bench of this Court has held that the insurance charges incurred to cover the risk in transit of the goods cannot be included as part of the turnover under rule 6 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. We are of the view that that case is distinguishable from the facts of the case on hand. In the view we have taken that commitment charges or interest form part of the sale price which have to be included in the taxable turnover of the assessee, the tax revision case is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 194 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -rules (11) and (12) of rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules would not vitiate the sale bills produced by the petitioner. 4.. A perusal of the sale bills shows that they have been maintained in the regular course of business, although the entries in manuscript found in the sale bills are made in the language other than English. But that would not vitiate the sale bills or take away the authenticity or veracity of those sale bills. Since the orders impugned in this writ petition proceed mainly on the basis that the sale bills have not been maintained by the petitioner in accordance with rule 26(11) and (12) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules and as these rules have no application to an inter-State transport where the goods originated from Madhya Pradesh, the impugned orders are quashed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. The petitioner would be entitled to the consequential relief of refund. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 193 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice - Review show cause notice - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... se in the revisional proceedings. 14. emsp The order in Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. CCE - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 216, relied upon by Shri Asthana is distinguished on fact. The Collector on perusal of record found that the Asstt. Collector rsquo s order had been passed without benefit of the test report of the Chemical Examiner. The samples are collected and sent for chemical analysis. The Asstt. Collector without awaiting for the result of the report of the chemical examiner passed the impugned order in that case. Therefore, there is justification for the Collector to revise the proceedings. Whereas in the present case the Central Excise authorities were proposing to make out a new case in the addendum which they cannot do. 15. emsp Since we are of the view that the addendum falls outside the jurisdiction of the Collector we are not considering the other grounds raised by the appellants. In the light of the above we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector.
-
1990 (6) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... question of levy of special excise duty is also involved. As we have set aside the orders without saving any part of them whatever issues were involved in these orders should be considered afresh. 6. The Supreme Court also in SLP No. 4515/1977 Civil Appeal No. 1893/1974 in Western India Vegetable Products Etc. v. J.R. Kartikar and others by their order dated April 6, 1990 observed as follows - ldquo In view of circular No. F. No. 90/3/87/CX-3, dated 9-9-1987 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs the civil appeal as well as the special leave petition are allowed. Both the parties are directed to act in accordance with contents of the circular. There will be no order as to cost. rdquo 7. In the light of the orders of this Tribunal referred to above and also the Supreme Court order referred to above, we allow the appeals and direct the Assistant Collector to reassess the assessable value in the light of circular referred to above in the judgment of the Supreme Court.
-
1990 (6) TMI 191 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... is decision by holding that there were no infirmities in the findings of this Tribunal. This was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills rsquo case. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the only section for refund of the excess duty paid by the appellant, is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no other provision providing for such refund by the Customs authorities. Section 154 speaks of only clerical or arithmetical directions. In such circumstances, the application for refund being beyond the time limit was rejected by the lower authorities. We also observe that merely because the Bill of Entry was corrected in view of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, the refund cannot be granted beyond the period of limitation contemplated under Section 27 of the CustomsAct, 1962.and there is no case made out to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the result, the appeal is rejected.
-
1990 (6) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty on transportation ... ... ... ... ..... zed vehicle, at the time of seizure, was still in the name of the appellant. Position of law is very clear that owner could be liable only if it could be shown that either he had used the vehicle for transporting contraband goods or that he had allowed it to be so used or that he connived at such use of the vehicle. There is absolutely no evidence to this effect on record. So, assuming for the sake of arguments that the vehicle belonged to the appellant and was not transferred to Shri Jeevan Lal, as contended by the appellant, then also that fact, by itself, would not justify implicating the appellant with the act of transporting the contraband goods and would not justify imposition of any penalty on the appellant. In the circumstances, the appeal is required to be allowed. So, we pass the following final order The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent that penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1990 (6) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Undervaluation ... ... ... ... ..... at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale for delivery at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade mdash . In other words if the price of similar goods on the date and place of import is available then the customs authorities are competent to determine the assessable value by adopting the said price disregarding the invoice price. In this case the price of contemporary imports of similar goods is available. Therefore, the customs authorities are justified in rejecting invoice value. As regards the quality of the goods from the order of the Collector it is evident that the appellants themselves admitted before the Collector that there was not much difference between the FAQ and whole variety. Before us the appellants have not adduced any evidence, how there is a difference between FAQ and whole variety of goods. 7. Therefore, we see no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1990 (6) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hat of flush doors, since it is well-known that restructuring of the new Central Excise Tariff on HSN was admittedly revenue-neutral. That could be so if the blockboards were classified under sub-heading 4408.90 rather than sub-heading 4410.90. Further, this view point is strengthened by clubbing of blockboard with lsquo veneered panels rsquo , among other products, in Notification 55/79 (as amended) and the lsquo veneered panels rsquo are specifically classified under Heading 44.08. 4. Nevertheless, we observe that the learned SDR has submitted that the case is covered in favour of the appellants in view of the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. 427-431/89-D dated 18-10-1989. In view of this stance of the respondents, we are constrained to allow the appeals. I agree with the conclusion following the ratio of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Woodcraft Products Ltd., Order No. 427 to 431/89-D dated 18-10-1989. Dated 7-6-1990 Sd/- (G.P. Agarwal) Judicial Member
-
1990 (6) TMI 187 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of duty ... ... ... ... ..... admittedly not having appealed against the same. In such a situation, a creature of the statute like the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the validity of the said order not appealed against and grant a relief, which is declaratory in nature, as prayed for by the appellants. The learned Counsel has made it very clear that the appellants would not be making any pre-deposit and would be resting its case for waiver purely on the question of law pleaded before us. Under Section 35 of the Act pre-deposit is sine qua non for the appellants to exercise the very right of appeal unless this is waived by the Tribunal for the reasons stated there under. Since we have already found that the appellants would not be entitled prima facie to seek waiver of pre-deposit by virtue of Notification issued under Section 11C and since the appellants have categorically stated that they are not putting forth any other plea, we dismiss the application as well as the appeal.
........
|
