|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 290 Records
-
1990 (12) TMI 91
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the exemption notification dated 19-6-1980.
2. Authority to review the approved classification list.
3. Clubbing of clearances of different manufacturers for exemption purposes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Interpretation of the Exemption Notification
The appellant contended that the interpretation of the notification dated 19-6-1980 by the Assistant Collector and the learned single Judge was erroneous. The notification exempts specified goods cleared for home consumption up to an aggregate value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs from the whole of the duty of excise and provides partial exemption for the next Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The proviso states that the aggregate value of clearances from any factory by or on behalf of one or more manufacturers shall not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs in any financial year. The court held that the notification extends the benefit of exemption only if the conditions specified therein are fulfilled. The total clearances from any factory, whether by one or more manufacturers, eligible for total or partial exemption, shall not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs. The notification aims to benefit small manufacturers in small factories, and both the manufacturer and the factory must meet the specified conditions to claim exemption.
2. Authority to Review the Approved Classification List
The appellant argued that once the classification list had been approved, the order should not be reviewed by the same authority as there was no power of review vested in such authority. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in N.B. Sanjana v. Elphinstone Mills and D.R. Kohli v. Atul Products Ltd., which clarified that even a nil assessment where duty is payable amounts to a short levy. The court held that the provisions of Sec. 11A of the Act were applicable for recovering excise duty short levied due to an erroneous approval of the classification list. The withdrawal of the classification list was to correct the endorsement of nil duty, not to review the classification of goods.
3. Clubbing of Clearances of Different Manufacturers
The appellant claimed to be an independent manufacturer and argued against clubbing the clearances of M/s. Regal Rubbers with its own. The court held that the notification considers the aggregate value of clearances from any factory, regardless of whether the goods are manufactured by one or more manufacturers. The entitlement to exemption must be worked out by considering the clearances already made by M/s. Regal Rubbers from the same factory in the same financial year. The appellant had taken on sub-lease the rights to the factory, equipment, and machinery from M/s. Regal Rubbers, and the factory's total clearances must be considered for exemption purposes.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the legality of the Assistant Collector's order and the learned single Judge's judgment. The interpretation of the exemption notification was found to be correct, the authority to review the classification list under Sec. 11A was affirmed, and the clubbing of clearances from the same factory was justified. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 90
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of the cost of gunny bags in the value of cement for excise duty.
2. Applicability of the exception under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Validity of proceedings initiated under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 after its amendment and omission.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Inclusion of the Cost of Gunny Bags in the Value of Cement for Excise Duty:
The primary issue in the petition was whether the cost of gunny bags used for packing cement should be included in the value of the cement for the purpose of excise duty under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court noted that the cement could only be sold in packed condition, with gunny bags being the primary packing material. It was established that for determining the value of excisable goods, the normal price at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade must be considered. The court concluded that since the cement was marketable only when packed in gunny bags, the cost of these bags should be included in the value of the cement for excise duty purposes.
2. Applicability of the Exception under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The petitioner argued that the cost of gunny bags should be excluded from the value of the cement as the bags were of durable nature and returnable by the buyer to the assessee. The court emphasized that to benefit from the exception under Section 4(4)(d)(i), the assessee must demonstrate that the packing material is durable and returnable, there is an agreement for the return of such packing material, and the cost of such packing material is either not included in the price or is refunded to the buyer upon return. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in K. Radha Krishaiah v. Inspector of Central Excise, which clarified that the packing must be returnable under an arrangement between the buyer and the assessee. In the present case, the petitioner failed to show any agreement or arrangement for the return of gunny bags, and thus, the exception did not apply.
3. Validity of Proceedings Initiated Under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 After Its Amendment and Omission:
The petitioner contended that the proceedings initiated under the old Rule 10 should come to an end as Rule 10 was amended with effect from 6-8-1977 and later omitted. The court discussed the judgments in Mahendra Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that proceedings under the old Rule 10 could not be continued after its omission. However, the court also considered the contrary view in M/s. Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which distinguished between the amendment and repeal of rules, suggesting that the proceedings could continue under the new provisions. The court ultimately referred this issue to a Larger Bench for a definitive resolution, questioning whether notices issued or actions taken under the substituted or omitted Rule 10 would stand discharged or terminated upon its substitution or omission.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the cost of gunny bags should be included in the value of cement for excise duty purposes as the petitioner failed to demonstrate an arrangement for the return of the bags. The court also deferred the final decision on the validity of proceedings under the old Rule 10, pending a decision by a Larger Bench on the matter. The court directed the office to place the matter before the learned Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
-
1990 (12) TMI 89
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985.
3. Endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:
The petitioners contended that the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise was without jurisdiction. The argument centered on Section 78 of the Gold (Control) Act, which specifies the officers authorized to adjudicate under the Act. Section 78(a) empowers a Collector of Central Excise or Customs with unlimited adjudication powers. Section 78(b) allows the Central Government to authorize other Gold Control Officers, not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, through a notification.
The court examined the relevant notifications:
- Notification dated 27-12-1980 authorized the Additional Collector of Customs to exercise adjudication powers.
- Notification No. 3/81 dated 1-8-1981 included the Additional Collector of Central Excise.
- Notification dated 6-6-1984 omitted both the Additional Collector of Customs and the Additional Collector of Central Excise from the list of authorized officers.
The court concluded that post 6-6-1984, the Additional Collector of Central Excise no longer had the authority to exercise adjudication powers under the Gold (Control) Act. The argument that the definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, which includes an Additional Collector, should apply to the Gold (Control) Act was rejected. The court emphasized that powers under the Gold (Control) Act must be explicitly conferred by a notification under Section 78(b).
2. Validity of the Adjudication Order dated 19-1-1985:
Given the lack of jurisdiction, the court found the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure A) to be invalid. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was not authorized to pass the order as he ceased to be a Gold Control Officer post 6-6-1984. The court quashed the order on the grounds of it being passed without jurisdiction.
3. Endorsement Issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras:
The petitioners also sought to quash the endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 13-3-1985 (Annexure G-1), which declined to entertain their appeal. However, since the adjudication order itself was quashed, the court deemed it unnecessary to address this issue further.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were allowed, and the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was quashed. The court ordered the return of the primary gold weighing 1416 grams to the first petitioner within eight weeks. The endorsement by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, was not considered further due to the quashing of the adjudication order.
-
1990 (12) TMI 88
Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Barred by limitation under Rule 11 read with Section 11B.
3. Legality of duty collection and subsequent exemption clarification.
4. Judicial precedents on illegal tax collection and refund.
5. Unjust enrichment and passing on of duty burden.
6. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 for refund claims.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a public limited company manufacturing steel ingots, sought a refund of duty amounting to Rs. 65,868.11 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The duty was imposed by Notification No. 156/79 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per metric ton on steel ingots produced in mini plants like the petitioner's after 9-4-1979.
2. The claim for refund was rejected by the first respondent citing limitation under Rule 11 read with Section 11B of the Act. The petitioner's subsequent appeals to the Appellate Collector and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) were also dismissed, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
3. The petitioner argued that although the claim for refund was time-barred, the duty collection was illegal as clarified by the Government's subsequent exemption for steel ingots manufactured before 9-4-1979. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner contended that illegal tax collection should be refunded, especially after the Government's clarification in October 1980.
4. The respondents relied on the Division Bench judgment in Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, emphasizing that directing a refund may result in unjust enrichment if the duty burden was passed on to consumers. They also highlighted a recent judgment where parties were directed to seek remedy in a Civil Court for refund claims based on contractual principles.
5. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim but found that ordering a refund might lead to unjust enrichment as the duty burden could have been passed on to consumers. Considering the factual questions and principles of unjust enrichment, the Court rejected the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. The Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue its claim before the Assistant Collector based on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1990 (12) TMI 87
Issues:
1. Challenge to direction by Superintendent of Central Excise regarding Central Excise license and payment for compost manure production.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a government-owned corporation, produced compost manure from garbage as a solution to waste disposal issues. The process involved collecting garbage, separating iron particles, and fermenting the remaining material naturally to produce compost manure. The petitioner faced heavy losses and eventually closed the plant. The main contention raised was that the compost manure production process did not qualify as a 'manufacturing process' under the Central Excise Act. Additionally, it was argued that even if considered manufacturing, the product was exempt from excise duty under relevant notifications. The petitioner highlighted specific tariff items excluding natural fertilizers, which they claimed applied to their product.
The court noted that the petitioner's process of producing compost manure was without the aid of power and relied on natural fermentation, qualifying for exemption under Notification No. 179/77 and subsequent notifications. The court emphasized that the product fell under the exempt category and was not subject to excise duty. The court referenced various notifications and tariff items to support its decision, including the exemption of compost manure from excise duty under Notification No. 181/80-C.E. The court also discussed the interpretation of Tariff Item 68 and the impact of specific exclusions in other tariff items on the classification of goods.
Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted the principle of classification and the significance of specific exclusions in determining the applicability of the residuary Item 68 for excise duty. The court cited cases where specific exclusions in main items precluded the application of the residuary item. The court clarified the impact of the Explanation added to Tariff Item 68, expanding the scope of goods covered under the residuary item. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashing the direction by the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding the Central Excise license and payment for compost manure production, citing the product's exemption from excise duty.
In conclusion, the judgment favored the petitioner, emphasizing the exemption of compost manure from excise duty based on the nature of the production process and relevant notifications. The court's analysis delved into the interpretation of tariff items, specific exclusions, and the application of the residuary Item 68 in excise classification. The decision provided clarity on the legal framework governing excise duty exemptions and upheld the petitioner's position regarding the production and classification of compost manure.
-
1990 (12) TMI 86
Issues:
1. Determination of process loss vs. storage loss in the manufacturing of Caustic Soda.
2. Adjudication of losses in a manufacturing unit under Section 11A.
3. Consideration of time bar under Section 11A.
4. Validity of the order-in-appeal issued by the Collector of Central Excise.
5. Apportionment of total losses between processing loss and storage loss.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the nature of losses incurred during the manufacturing of Caustic Soda. The Assistant Collector initially determined that the loss was mainly a process loss, not a storage loss, based on the method of accounting used by the licensee. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) later set aside this decision and directed a reevaluation to ascertain storage loss under Rule 223(A), leading to a remand back to the Assistant Collector for the third time.
2. The Assistant Collector's order dated 16-12-1985 concluded that the loss was primarily a process loss and not a storage loss. He allowed a specific percentage of the total loss as a process loss, citing a previous government order for reference. The issue of time bar under Section 11A was raised by the party but was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, stating it did not apply to adjudication of losses in a manufacturing unit.
3. The Government reviewed the facts and found that the Assistant Collector had provided detailed reasons for considering the loss as a process loss. The Collector's order setting aside this decision lacked reasoning and did not address the party's shift to actual physical verification of production, which eliminated discrepancies between manufactured and stored quantities.
4. The Government noted that the party had not suppressed any facts, as the losses were accurately reflected in their records. With the party now recording production based on actual measurements, the Government accepted that any earlier losses were likely due to processing or external factors like power failures.
5. During the hearing, the party confirmed that there was no storage loss based on their calculations, a stance supported by the Assistant Collector's previous order. Consequently, the Government restored the Assistant Collector's well-reasoned decision from 16-12-1985, providing consequential benefit to the party.
-
1990 (12) TMI 85
The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the necessity of a formal request for set off within the prescribed time under Rule 11 or Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal had previously rejected a similar application under Section 35C(7) of the Act.
-
1990 (12) TMI 84
The petition under Section 82(B)(iii) of the Gold Control Act sought a direction for the Tribunal to refer questions of law. The Revenue raised five questions, but the Court focused on two questions regarding entry in accounts and charges under specific sections. The Court found these questions relevant and directed the Tribunal to refer them for decision.
-
1990 (12) TMI 83
Whether coconut fibre is a separate entity from the husk in the commercial parlance?
Held that:- the article that emerged, as a result of the process of manufacture, must be a distinct and new article recognised or known as such in the commercial parlance for sale or supply. In view of the admitted position that green husk is soaked into saltish sea water for days together and after decomposition, on being subjected to beating either by manual or mechanical process, fibre is produced in the process, which is a distinct commodity known in the commercial parlance.
Accordingly, we hold that the coconut fibre is commercially a different identifiable commodity known as such in the commercial parlance. The value of sale or purchase of coconut husk would attract purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act. Appeal allowed.
-
1990 (12) TMI 82
Issues: Conviction and sentence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, Customs Act, and Imports and Exports (Control) Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the appeal challenging the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 8 and 15 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 135(a)(i) and 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of a conspiracy to smuggle goods into India, with the appellants playing a significant role in facilitating the smuggling operations.
2. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused's involvement in multiple smuggling operations, meetings with co-conspirators, and the use of telephones to coordinate illegal activities. The witnesses, including accomplices, testified to the appellants' participation in the conspiracy, frequent travels to Bombay, and communication with key conspirators. The Magistrate found the appellants guilty based on this evidence and imposed substantial sentences on them, including imprisonment and fines.
3. The defense argued that the evidence against the appellants was insufficient and unreliable. However, the court upheld the Magistrate's decision, emphasizing the credibility of the witnesses, corroborative evidence, and the appellants' conflicting statements regarding their involvement. The court found the witnesses' testimony credible and sufficiently supported by independent sources, leading to the affirmation of the convictions.
4. The defense further raised concerns about the delay in the appeal process and highlighted the appellants' clean records since the commission of the offenses. Considering the time elapsed and the appellants' conduct post-offense, the court reduced the substantive sentences to the period already served by the appellants. However, the court enhanced the fines imposed on the appellants due to the gravity of the offenses, with non-payment leading to additional imprisonment.
5. In the final order, the court partly allowed the appeal by affirming the convictions but reducing the substantive sentences to the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants. The fines were increased significantly to Rs. 8,000 for accused No. 8 and Rs. 4,000 for accused No. 15, with non-payment resulting in additional imprisonment.
-
1990 (12) TMI 81
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of lacquered and metallised polyester film under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Definition and scope of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of excise duty on lacquered/metallised polyester film.
4. Validity of tariff advice and its impact on quasi-judicial functions.
5. Availability of alternative remedy and jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Lacquered and Metallised Polyester Film:
The petitioners challenged the classification of lacquered and metallised polyester film under Tariff Item 15A(2) or Tariff Item 15BB. The respondents sought to levy excise duty on these films, arguing that they fell under the specified tariff items. The petitioners contended that they had already paid excise duty on the polyester film manufactured at Aurangabad and that further processing at Nasik did not warrant additional duty.
2. Definition and Scope of 'Manufacture':
The petitioners argued that lacquering/metallising of polyester film does not constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court examined the definition of 'manufacture,' which includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that 'manufacture' implies a transformation resulting in a new and different article with a distinctive name, character, or use.
3. Applicability of Excise Duty:
The court noted that prior to March 1981, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified that metallised/lacquered polyester films were not liable to duty again if produced from duty-paid polyester film. This position was reiterated even after the introduction of Tariff Item 15BB in March 1981. However, from 1-3-1982, Tariff Item 15BB was omitted, and Tariff Item 15A was amended to include lacquered or metallised films. Despite this, the court found no material evidence indicating that the process of lacquering/metallising resulted in a new commercial commodity with a distinct identity or use. Therefore, the court held that the processing at Nasik did not amount to 'manufacture,' and no additional excise duty was warranted.
4. Validity of Tariff Advice:
The petitioners argued that the respondents' decision to levy excise duty was influenced by tariff advice dated 15-7-1982. The court acknowledged that respondents must perform a quasi-judicial function in classifying goods and levying excise duty, which should not be fettered by tariff advice. However, the court found no indication in the impugned orders that the decision was based solely on the tariff advice.
5. Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The respondents contended that the impugned orders were appealable, and the petitioners should have pursued alternative remedies. The court, however, noted that the writ petition had been admitted in October 1982, and interim orders had been passed. Given the lapse of eight years, the court decided to adjudicate the petition on its merits rather than dismissing it on procedural grounds.
Judgment:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, making the rule absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). This included the refund of excise duty paid under protest from 28-2-1982 on lacquered/metallised polyester film at the petitioners' factory at Nasik. The refund was to be made within ten weeks, failing which the amount would carry interest at 12% per annum. The court did not award additional interest due to the nature of the contentions raised. No order as to costs was made.
-
1990 (12) TMI 80
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of issuance of show cause notices.
2. Limitation period for issuing show cause notices.
3. Basis for determining assessable value of excisable goods.
4. Validity of the show cause notices.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Issuance of Show Cause Notices:
The petitioners challenged the issuance of six show cause-cum-demand notices under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. They argued that the notices were issued without jurisdiction and amounted to an abuse of power. The petitioners contended that the show cause notices demanded excise duty based on an incorrect assessment of the value of motor vehicle chassis, which was not justified under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Limitation Period for Issuing Show Cause Notices:
The petitioners argued that five out of the six show cause notices were time-barred as they were issued beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 11A(1) of the Act. The court noted that the department did not refer to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A, which extends the limitation period to five years in cases of fraud, collusion, or wilful mis-statement. Since the department did not allege any such factors, the five show cause notices were deemed barred by limitation and were struck down.
3. Basis for Determining Assessable Value of Excisable Goods:
The primary contention was whether the assessable value of motor vehicle chassis should include the value of six tyres as specified in the classification list, even when the chassis were cleared with only four tyres. The court held that the assessable value should be based on the actual goods cleared from the factory gate, which in this case were chassis with four tyres. The court rejected the department's claim that the value should include two additional tyres, as this was notional and not based on the actual transaction.
4. Validity of the Show Cause Notices:
The court examined the validity of the show cause notices, particularly the one dated February 20, 1985, which was within the limitation period. The court held that the issuance of this notice was also without jurisdiction as it was based on an incorrect assumption that the assessable value should include the value of six tyres. The court emphasized that excise duty should be calculated based on the actual goods cleared and not on hypothetical specifications.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that all six show cause notices were invalid. Five notices were struck down due to being time-barred, and the sixth notice was invalidated for being based on an incorrect assessment of the assessable value. The petition succeeded, and the rule was made absolute in terms of prayer (a), with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 79
Issues: Conviction and sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962; Voluntariness of Section 108 Customs Act statements; Culpability of accused Nos. 17 and 20 based on their statements.
In this case, the appellants, accused Nos. 5, 17, and 20, challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Customs Authorities apprehended the accused for their involvement in smuggling activities, where they allegedly allowed their godown to be used for storing contraband. The main evidence against the appellants was the Section 108 Customs Act statements they made, which they later retracted, claiming coercion by the authorities. The trial court found the statements voluntary and convicted the accused. Accused No. 5's appeal abated due to his demise after availing bail. Accused Nos. 17 and 20 challenged the voluntariness of their statements and their culpability based on the same.
The High Court analyzed the statements made by accused Nos. 17 and 20 under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Accused No. 17 admitted to allowing contraband to be stored in the family godown on one occasion, despite advice against it. The court held that this act did not establish his involvement in a criminal conspiracy but rendered him guilty under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act. Considering his age and circumstances, the court substituted his sentence with a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a provision for two years of imprisonment if the fine was not paid within six weeks.
Regarding accused No. 20, the court found his statement lacked incriminating evidence. Accused No. 20 mentioned incidents involving accused No. 17 and others but did not directly implicate himself in any criminal activity. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to convict and sentence accused No. 20 could not be sustained, and thus set aside the order entirely.
In the final order, the High Court restricted the conviction of accused No. 17 to the offense under Section 135(b)(i) of the Customs Act, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 with a provision for two years of imprisonment if the fine remained unpaid. The conviction and sentence against accused No. 20 were entirely set aside, and any fine paid by him was to be refunded. The appeal related to accused No. 5 was abated due to his passing.
-
1990 (12) TMI 78
The High Court of Bombay quashed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on petitioners based on a finding from the outturn report of the Port of Bombay Trustees. The court held that short landings cannot be determined solely on outturn reports and ordered a fresh hearing with reasoned decision considering relevant court judgments. Respondents were directed to pay petitioners' costs. (Case: 1990 (12) TMI 78 - High Court of Bombay)
-
1990 (12) TMI 77
Whether the goods in question fall under one or the other of the two headings in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the `Customs Tariff') referred to later?
Held that:- Although the product imported by the appellant is battery grade manganese dioxide, it does not fall under Heading 25.01/32 because it is not the ore in its crude form but is the ore in a form purified or upgraded by electrolysis. Once the applicability of Chapter 25 is out for this reason, the only item that can cover the goods in question is Heading 28.01/58, since there is no dispute that the item in question is a chemical product or chemical compound. Against assessee.
-
1990 (12) TMI 76
Whether the kraft paper marketed by the company is bituminised water-proof packing paper, polythene-lined kraft packing paper etc. and as such were different and distinct products than the original kraft paper purchased by the company?
Held that:- Once we hold that the coating and lamination and other process applied by the company in its factory amounts to manufacture, new products come into being. It does not remain an ordinary kraft paper and as such it is liable to excise duty of 40% ad valorem as provided, under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 17(2).
The entire case before the Assistant Collector was understood and argued on the basis of controversy regarding manufacture. Once it is held that the products which come into being are manufactured from kraft paper, then in the facts and circumstances of this case there can be no controversy that new goods come into being and they are sold in the market as distinct, separate and different goods. In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and uphold the order of the Assistant Collector who held that the processed kraft paper had a definite characteristic, use and value and as such they are different products and are liable to payment of excise duty.
-
1990 (12) TMI 75
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to triple shift depreciation allowance on plant and machinery.
2. Justification for depreciation at 10% on overhead cables and wires.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Triple Shift Depreciation Allowance on Plant and Machinery:
The assessee, engaged in the supply of electrical energy, claimed extra-shift depreciation at 100% of the normal depreciation on its plant and machinery, which was previously allowed. The Income-tax Officer disallowed this claim, referencing item III(i) of Part I of Appendix I, which specifies that no extra-shift depreciation is admissible for "Electrical machinery-switchgear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant and wiring and fittings of electric light and fan installation."
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the Income-tax Officer's decision. However, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to extra-shift allowance on its plant, interpreting that the "No Extra Shift Allowance" (NESA) restriction applies only to specific machinery, not to a composite plant. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the Revenue, arguing that the extra shift allowance should not be permitted due to the specific NESA clause.
The High Court, after considering the rival contentions and the historical context of the rules, concluded that the amendment to the Income-tax Rules did not introduce any new disqualification regarding the electrical plant used by Electric Supply Undertakings. The Court noted that electric machinery used by Electric Supply Undertakings stands on a different footing from electrical machinery used by other undertakings. Therefore, electric machinery used by an Electric Supply Undertaking is entitled to extra shift allowance even after the amendment.
2. Justification for Depreciation at 10% on Overhead Cables and Wires:
The assessee claimed depreciation at 10% on overhead cables and wires, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, who allowed only 5%. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) agreed with this view. The Tribunal, however, held that the claim for depreciation at 10% on overhead cables and wires should be allowed, but since the assessee had not claimed depreciation separately on its machinery, the matter was remanded to the Income-tax Officer for determining the amount of extra shift allowance and to allow the additional depreciation of 5% on overhead cables and wires.
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the entirety of the electric plant, including overhead cables and wires, fell within the classification under the Income-tax Rules, and the rate of depreciation applicable remained unaffected by the amendment. The Court emphasized that the amendment aimed to simplify and rationalize the rates of depreciation without changing the scheme for extra shift allowance.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, confirming the entitlement to triple shift depreciation allowance on its plant and machinery and the justification for depreciation at 10% on overhead cables and wires. There was no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 74
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the appropriate authority u/s Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity and legality of the document in question.
3. Consideration of separate ownership and independent transactions.
4. Compliance with other enactments like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appropriate Authority:
The primary issue was whether the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority u/s Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act is confined to either passing an order within the specified period for the purchase of property by the Central Government or issuing a no objection certificate for the transfer at the recorded consideration. The court held that the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority is limited to either passing an order for purchase or issuing a no objection certificate. The authority is only to examine the adequacy of the consideration and decide accordingly, without delving into the legality or validity of the transaction.
2. Validity and Legality of the Document:
The appropriate authority had questioned the legality of the transaction by considering the provisions of other enactments like the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The court found that the appropriate authority had no jurisdiction to question the validity of the transaction, which had already been cleared by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The court emphasized that the appropriate authority must function within the confines of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act.
3. Consideration of Separate Ownership and Independent Transactions:
The petitioner argued that her plot (Plot A) and her son's plot (Plot B) were separate entities with distinct ownership and should be considered independently. The appropriate authority had treated the plots as a composite property, which the court found to be beyond its jurisdiction. The court noted that the petitioner's transaction was independent and should not be clubbed with her son's transaction.
4. Compliance with Other Enactments:
The appropriate authority had also considered the refusal of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to sanction building plans for Plot B and the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The court held that these considerations were irrelevant to the petitioner's transaction, which had been cleared by the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The court found no prohibition under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act or any other law on the sub-division and sale of sub-divided freehold plots in Delhi.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appropriate authority had acted beyond its jurisdiction and on irrelevant considerations. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated December 15, 1989, was set aside. The respondents were directed to issue a no objection certificate u/s 269UL of the Income-tax Act for the registration of the sale deed of Plot No. A 101, Friends Colony, New Delhi. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (12) TMI 73
Issues involved: Interpretation of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding search and seizure of properties.
Summary:
The High Court of Kerala addressed the interpretation of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case involving a search and seizure conducted by the Income-tax Officer. The search resulted in the seizure of various properties, including immovable properties covered by the G. C. D. A. Scheme at Kaloor and other properties in Cochin-18. The court analyzed the statutory scheme and concluded that the officer's action lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that search and seizure are interconnected. The court cited the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Tarsem Kumar [1986] 161 ITR 505 to support its interpretation.
The court further discussed the broad scope of the term "other valuable article or thing" in section 132(1)(c), noting that it could encompass immovable property. References were made to decisions by the Orissa High Court and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1980] 121 ITR 212 and CIT v. Pressure Piling Co. (India) P. Ltd. [1980] 126 ITR 333, respectively. The court highlighted the importance of considering the context in which terms are used in statutes, applying principles like ejusdem generis to interpret specific words.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the judgment of the learned single judge and dismissed the appeal, disregarding subsequent developments and emphasizing the need for a definitive interpretation of the section for the benefit of the Revenue.
-
1990 (12) TMI 72
Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding disallowance of salary paid by an assessee-firm to a partner as an agent of mine owners.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of salary paid by an assessee-firm to one of its partners, Shri R. J. Trivedi, under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The firm claimed the amount was paid to Shri R. J. Trivedi as an agent of the mine owners and sought a deduction for the same. However, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.
The key contention revolved around the interpretation of the agreement between the assessee-firm and the mine owners. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on clause 2 of the agreement to conclude that the salary was paid to Shri R. J. Trivedi as a partner of the assessee-firm, not as an agent of the mine owners. The Tribunal endorsed this view in its additional statement.
Reference was made to a Full Bench decision in CIT v. Narbharam Popatbhai and Sons, which clarified that interest paid by a firm to a partner lending individual monies is not liable under section 40(b). The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the payment to Shri R. J. Trivedi was made as a partner or as an agent of the mine owners.
The court analyzed the terms of the agreement and rejected the argument that Shri R. J. Trivedi was acting as an agent of the mine owners based on clauses 4, 7, and 14. It was determined that the status of Shri R. J. Trivedi remained that of a partner of the assessee-firm, even though the firm acted as an agent for the mine owners.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the salary paid to Shri R. J. Trivedi was in his capacity as a partner of the assessee-firm, not as an agent of the mine owners. Therefore, the disallowance under section 40(b) was upheld, ruling in favor of the Department.
In summary, the judgment clarified the distinction between payment to a partner and an agent under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the importance of contractual terms and the actual role of the individual in question.
....
|
9911796707
