|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 914 - ITAT DELHI
Double taxation relief ... ... ... ... ..... d that the tax has already borne by the employer of the assessee. Therefore also we find that assessee is entitled for the exemption. Accordingly we hold that assessee was not liable to be included the income borne by M/s Indo Gulf Fertilizers and Chemicals Corporation Ltd. under the provisions of section 195A. Accordingly this ground of the assessee is also allowed. 11. Remaining issue is in regard to chargeability of surcharge. No sur-charge is applicable in case of non-resident. The provisions to this effect are very clear. Accordingly we hold that the Assessing Officer erred in levying surcharge on income-tax computed by the Assessing Officer. A copy of Finance Act, 1988 is placed at page 36, which clearly says that no surcharge shall be payable by a non-resident. Undisputedly the assessee is a non-resident. Accordingly no surcharge is payable by the assessee. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is also allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 907 - ITAT KOLKATA
Penalty - For false estimate of or failure to pay advance tax ... ... ... ... ..... bt that for each and every addition, penalty cannot be levied. 6.1 So far as penalty under section 273(1)(b) of the Act is concerned, it appears that the assessee had suffered loss in share transaction which according to it was allowable. Since the claim of loss was disallowed, the (sic) the addition was made and the assessee was required to file the statement of advance tax which the assessee could not anticipate while filing the return. The contention of the assessee appears to be reasonable. Further I find that on almost similar set of facts, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee in respect of share loss for the assessment year 1985-86. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that when the assessee was allowed relief for the immediately preceding year by the Tribunal, it could not apprehend that the claim of loss would be disallowed. 6.2 In such circumstances, I am of the view that both the penalties are liable to be cancelled. 7. In the result, the appeals are allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 906 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Alcoholic liquor, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... income by applying rate of 40 per cent of the purchase price. Besides, we find from the assessment orders that the Assessing Officer has separately disallowed the expenses in the nature of entertainment donation and charity etc. Therefore, no further disallowance for the expenses would also be made. Having regard to these facts and circumstances of the present cases, we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the book results. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A). The same are, therefore, confirmed and respective grounds of appeals dismissed. 8. As regards cross-objections filed by the assessees, there are merely supportive of the orders of the CIT(A). In view of our findings on the revenue rsquo s appeals, the cross-objections have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. 9. In the result, both the revenue rsquo s appeals and assessee rsquo s cross-objections are dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 905 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee, particularly the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court reported at 135 ITR 620 (supra), we would accept the contention raised by the assessee rsquo s representative. This ground is accordingly allowed and we direct that the deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I should be allowed to the assessee subject to the satisfaction of other conditions laid down in these provisions. This ground is accordingly allowed. 8. The ground of appeal raised before us also seeks relief in the matter of deduction under section 32AB. We find that this relief was not sought before the lower authorities at any stage and the assessee rsquo s plea does not arise out of the order of the learned CIT(A). No arguments were advanced by the learned authorised representative of the assessee on this point during the hearing before us. We, therefore, decline to pass any direction in regard to deduction under section 32AB. 9. For statistical purposes, the appeal shall be treated as allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 893 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Production capacity based duty - Determination of ... ... ... ... ..... Determination Rules, 1998 were amended with Notification No. 14/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and as per Explanation I to the new Rules, the length of galleries is not to be taken into account for computation of production capacity and number of chambers. The contention of the revenue is that only prior to 1-3-2000 for computation of production of annual capacity of stenter, the length of galleries is to be taken into consideration. 3. emsp We find that this issue is now settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 679 (T-LB) 2001 (42) RLT 429 . The Tribunal held that galleries of Hot Air Stenter are not to be taken into account while computing the production capacity of stenter as the galleries are not an equipment aiding the process of heat setting or drying of fabrics. In view of the above decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 892 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Accountal of goods - Storage ... ... ... ... ..... ime of removal of the goods. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the entry in RG-1 was not made with any intention to evade payment of duty. 8. emsp As regards the goods found outside the factory premises, I find that the appellants on 24-10-95 had intimated the Superintendent about the use of the place outside the factory rsquo s boundary wall for the purposes of stacking of the materials. This letter was written prior to the date of the visit of the officers on 5-1-96. Though such stacking of the goods outside the factory premises is violative of provisions of central excise law, nevertheless I find that the appellants rsquo jurisdictional superintendent on being approached by the appellant in October 1995 never adviced against such stacking of the goods outside the factory premises. The appellants cannot be put to fault for such contravention. In view of the foregoing I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (2) TMI 891 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Payment of duty by buyer of impugned goods - Payment of duty under protest by buyer ... ... ... ... ..... sed towards the generation of electricity and steam purpose of demanding duty from the respondent. It could therefore be legitimately construed that the respondent was the assessee with regard to goods covered by the notification. It could therefore file a protest with regard to the liability of duty in terms of the notification. 11. emsp We also note the decision of the Tribunal in Phosphate Company Ltd. v. CCE - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 599 relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel India (P) Ltd. v. UOI - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1495 holding that even in a situation where there was no provision of filing a protest, an assessee who has protested against this liability to duty can claim immunity from the operation of limitation in filing its claim for refund when he has lodged his protest against liability to duty. The only ground in the department rsquo s appeal is without merit. 12. emsp We therefore find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.
-
2002 (2) TMI 890 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... upon the fact that the other imports of similar goods from other persons from the same country, China, were valued differently. The ratio of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321, which the Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon is clear, that in the absence of the special circumstances referred to in sub-rule (4) of the Valuation Rules, the declared value has to be accepted as the transaction value. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not relied upon the opinion of the Supreme Court (contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment) that the discount is a commercially acceptable measure. He has relied upon the ratio set forth in paragraphs 13 and 14 that transaction value can be determined under Rule 4(1), and does not fall under the existence in Rule 4(2), there is no question of determining the value under the subsequent rules. We, therefore, find no ground for interference with the Commissioner (Appeals), order. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 889 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Drawback - Duty drawback - Delay in payment ... ... ... ... ..... attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 75A of the Customs Act, 1962 which is to the effect that if draw back has not been paid within a period of two months from the date of filing of the claim, claimant shall be eligible to the interest from the date of expiry of the said period till the date of payment of such draw back at the rate fixed under Section 27A. Shri Mehta said that the rates fixed under section 27A is 15 per annum in terms of Notfn. No. 32/95-Cus. (N.T.), dt. 26-5-95. As such he submits that the applicants are entitled to the interest in terms of the provisions of Section 75A read with Section 27A and the notification issued thereunder. 3. emsp In view of the foregoing we direct the Commissioner to quantify the amount of interest in terms of the provisions of Section 75A read with Section 27A and at the rates which may be fixed by the Govt. of India by notifications issued under Section 27A. Miscellaneous application is disposed of in above terms.
-
2002 (2) TMI 888 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... at both the units are the same and M/s. Paragon Processors could not be eligible exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98. 4. emsp A perusal of the notification makes it clear that the exemption is available to ldquo a factory rdquo . The only condition limiting eligibility is that the factory should not have facilities for producing single yarn. In the present case, M/s. Paragon Processors was a separate factory from M/s. Prag Jyoti Syntex Ltd. It had separate factory and Central Excise registration. There is no dispute raised that the factory in question had facility for producing single yarn. We are, therefore, in agreement with the appellants that they are being unjustly denied the exemption. We also find that the issue remains covered in favour of the assessee in the case of Vardhman Spg. and Gen. Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 94 (Tribunal). Appeal succeeds and is allowed after setting aside the impugned order.
-
2002 (2) TMI 887 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... arned Counsel submits that modification of our earlier Stay Order as to grant of waiver of pre-deposit is called for and undue hardship would be caused to the applicants, if the pre-deposit is insisted upon. 2. emsp Learned D.R., Shri A.K. Pandit, points out that in the present case the applicants/appellants were receiving the Gas Cylinders and if found suitable, they were affixing the label and selling the same. He, therefore, submits that the goods become marketable only after this procedure and therefore, levy of duty has been correctly done. 3. emsp We have perused the records and the Orders of the Tribunal referred to by the assessee rsquo s Counsel. We feel that in view of the earlier Orders of the Tribunal, the assessee rsquo s case merits waiver of pre-deposit. Our Stay Order Nos. S-1227-1228/KOLKATA/2001, dated 23-11-2001 is accordingly modified as prayed for by the applicants/appellants, and waiver of pre-deposit is allowed. Appeal is fixed for hearing on 18-3-2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 886 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... prescribed denomination on the three appeals have been returned by the postal authorities with the remarks that they refused to accept the envelopes. The appeals are therefore dismissed in terms of Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
-
2002 (2) TMI 885 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... ed 13-1-2000 which has been affirmed by the Apex Court also as reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. A251, wherein it has been ruled that re-drawing of the copper of less than 6 mm from the copper rods did not amount to manufacture, reversed the order-in-original of the Addl. Commissioner and dropped the show cause notice against the respondents. 3. emsp The learned JDR has not been able to cite any contrary case law. Moreover, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court has already affirmed the view of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Technoweld Indus., supra, by holding that re-drawing of copper wire of less than 6 mm from the copper rods did not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference. 4. emsp As a result, the appeal of the Revenue being without any merit, is ordered to be dismissed. The cross-objection of the respondents stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 883 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation - Export - Illegal export - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... s which were intercepted by the officers. At the time of filing the claim petition for the provisional release of the trucks, the said appellant did not disclose that he was also the owner of the cattles in question. On the contrary, he stated that he had no knowledge that the driver had loaded the cattles on hire from a cattles hat. As rightly observed by the authorities below if Shri Jamshed Ali was having a legitimate documents with him to show the possession of the cattles and if he was not having a guilty mind about the export of cattle to Bangladesh, nothing prevented him to disclose the factum of ownership of the cattles in question at the time of making the prayer for provisional release of the trucks. On the contrary, he took two-and-a-half months to lodge his claim for the cattles in question. All these facts and circumstances are reflecting upon the factum of cattles being exported to Bangladesh. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned order and reject both the appeals.
-
2002 (2) TMI 880 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... llowed the same being non-manufacturers having no factory of their own. As such, I do not find any force in the learned Advocate rsquo s contention that the goods have been supplied by M/s. CARTER Hydraulic to M/s. CONMECH Sales (P) Ltd. and M/s. HYCON International under the cover of invoices issued under Notification No. 214/86, Non-supply of the same further to the appellants without the coverage of the invoices under the said Notification would not make much difference inasmuch as the goods manufactured by the appellants have gone back to the original raw material supplier i.e. M/s. CARTER Hydraulic Power (I) Ltd. and have been used by them in the manufacture of the final product. 5. emsp The findings of the lower adjudicating authority that it is the job worker who is to be considered as the manufacturer of the goods in the absence of any notification covering them, do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the appeal and reject the same.
-
2002 (2) TMI 846 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ding 4820.90 was made clear. The Trade Notice of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara dated 6-12-1990 which is based on the Board rsquo s circular explained that doubts have been expressed as to whether such stationery was classifiable under Heading 48.20 or 48.23 of the tariff and concludes that it will be classifiable under Heading 4823.90. It is thus perfectly possible for the appellant to have entertained a belief that the stationery was classifiable under Heading 48.20 and thus exempted from duty. In that event, it was not required to file any classification list or otherwise comply with the excise formalities with regard to these goods. Therefore, the basis in the notice for invoking the extended period that the appellant wilfully suppressed furnishing information with regard to the production and clearance of this stationery is not tenable and the extended period will not be available. 5. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (2) TMI 845 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods - Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... he present case in which the electrodes have been held to be an integral part of the electric arc furnace of the respondents. This finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not under challenge. I, therefore, accept the MSW electrodes as an integral part of the electric arc furnace and hence eligible for capital goods credit under Clause (b) of Explanation (1) to Rule 57Q(1). Counsel has relied on the decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. in respect of Transformer oil. This reliance is also futile inasmuch as, in the cited case, the item under consideration was lubricating oil whereas, in the instant case, the item is transformer oil which has been accepted by the Board as an integral part of transformer. 4. emsp In view of the above findings, Modvat credit is held to be admissible to the respondents in respect of transformer oil as input under Rule 57A and, in respect of all the remaining items, as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Revenue rsquo s appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 844 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Review of order ... ... ... ... ..... amount to review of his order was not permitted. 4. emsp This is not the correct position in law. The stay order passed by the Commissioner as like such orders passed by the Tribunal and Courts are an interim order which does not finally settle the issue. If the Commissioner were of the view that the modification application otherwise should have been entertained, he should not have declined to consider it solely on this ground. In any event, the Commissioner after dismissing the modification application should have given the applicant before him, a reasonable time within which to make the deposit in stead of dismissing the appeal in the same order in which he dismissed the modification application. 5. emsp Therefore without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the ground raised in the modification application, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall consider the modification application and pass orders in accordance with law.
-
2002 (2) TMI 829 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Writ jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... der of this Court will be applicable even outside the jurisdiction. But even when no cause of action is arisen within the jurisdiction question of having applicability of the order outside the jurisdiction cannot arise. It is non-obstante to the earlier part of the Article 226(2). Therefore, merely because CEGAT in Calcutta passed an order in respect of the matter in the State of Bihar, this Court cannot assume the jurisdiction. Incidentally even the order of the CEGAT, Calcutta in respect of the subject matter of the State of Bihar ipso facto cannot give rise even part cause of action within the jurisdiction. Thus, upon taking totality of the matter and following the ratio of the judgment reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 596 (S.C.) AIR 2002 SC 126 (Union of India and Ors. v. Adani Export Ltd. and Anr.). I dismiss both the applications and also the writ petition by treating as on day rsquo s list. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 6. emsp There will be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 821 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Abatement of duty - Compounded levy on Iron & Steel products ... ... ... ... ..... no dispute of these items having been duly given by the assessee to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. The only objection in granting the abatement claim is that copies of the notices were not duly given to the Range Supdt. I am of the view that once it is accepted that the notices of closure/restart of production have been duly submitted to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, the requirements of Clauses (b) and (d) of sub-rule (2) should be held to have been substantially fulfilled by the assessee, where all the other requirements under Clauses (a) to (e) of the sub-rule have been duly and fully satisfied by them. Otherwise, it would be unfair and unjust to deny the substantive benefit of abatement of duty to the assessee who is working within the strict parameters of Compounded Levy Scheme. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow these appeals. The appeals are allowed. The assessees are held to be eligible for the abatement claims under reference.
............
|
