|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 81 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Mis-declaration of goods - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... that confiscation and penalty are not warranted since they had filed a declaration containing full details of the goods is not acceptable since they had declared that their goods fell under Chapter 46 and not under Chapter 54 or 63 where they admittedly fell. The acceptance of the declaration by the Superintendent is not tantamount to acceptance of the classification. The further contention that they were under a bona fide belief that the tapes and sacks were classifiable under Chapter 46 and that accordingly they were entitled to the benefit of the Notification 175/86 is belied by their knowledge that the tapes and sacks were classifiable under Chapter 54 or 63 respectively, both of which Chapters were not covered by Notification 175/86, based upon the booklet issued by All India Flat Tape Manufacturers rsquo Association and a letter, dated 6-4-1987 recovered from the factory. Hence penalty is also justified. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1999 (1) TMI 80 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... ue, Shri K.K. Anand submitted that it was not a tempered document as it was alleged and that it was genuine and the supplier M/s. The Punjab Steel Rolling Mills have issued a certificate dated 10-5-1996 to this effect was not appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner as can be seen. 5. emsp On going through the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that both the issues required reconsideration. With reference to the first issue the supplier of the inputs has given a certificate indicating that the input has already been suffered duty. It appears that the certificate was not taken into consideration by the Dy. Commissioner. Similarly, there is no clear finding by the adjudicating authority with reference to the certificate issued by the Punjab Steel Rolling Mills. Accordingly, he is directed to examine the both the issues and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity to the appellant. Thus, this appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (1) TMI 79 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Packaging machinery ... ... ... ... ..... ted to the international pallet standard. D. The ready-packed corrugated tray is wrapped in shrink-on film, which not only protects the contents against dust and moisture but also increases the pressure-absorbing ability of the tray. It will thus be observed that aseptic conditions are achieved not only when the milk is fed and packed into tetra packs but are also required subsequently to protect the tetra packs from dust and moisture when these are packed into units of sale in wholesale trade in the form of trays which are further packed into pallets. 4.3 emsp We are, therefore of the view that the entire set of three machines serve the purpose of aseptic packaging of goods entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid notification. It is inappropriate to single out the middle-stage machinery and deprive it of the benefit of the notification. 4.4 emsp In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (1) TMI 78 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... the position was issued and the same was explained by the appellants during the adjudication proceedings. It was also submitted by him that issue involved in this case has been covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saraf Silicates, reported in 1998 (25) RLT 928. 4. emsp I find that in the case referred to above, it was observed that both in terms of the procedure and the substantive law, Modvat credit cannot be denied. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, I hold that there is no justification to deny the credit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1999 (1) TMI 77 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
@C-HN1=Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... ctually required for final product was caustic soda. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that it was only a clerical mistake and following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. C.C.E., Jaipur, reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 191 observed that a clerical mistake in the declaration should not be a ground for disallowing the Modvat credit. It was also shown before me that lsquo caustic soda rsquo was appearing in the declaration. By mistake, it was shown as an intermediate product. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 76 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of duty and confiscation of conveyance and goods ... ... ... ... ..... r which the party claims was given to them. There is no method of cross-checking as to whether such an assurance was in fact given and even if a verbal assurance was given, the Assistant Commissioner could possibly not do so being not authorised to do so. He observed that party was confident that they were not doing anything wrong. However, in the absence of strict compliance of procedures and in the absence of written permission, he reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- and reduced the redemption fine in respect of truck from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. In view of his observation that party was confident that party was not doing anything wrong, in the absence of mens rea, I am of the view that there was no necessity for imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/-. In the view, I have taken, I set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 1,000/- but for this modification, the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (1) TMI 75 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hat Heading 30.05 applies only to sterile suture catgut, similar sterile suture material, etc. and this means that non-sterile sutures are not covered under Chapter 30. Where then are they be classified? They would be classified according to their constituent material. Since the sutures in dispute are made of textile yarn, they are rightly classifiable under CET sub-heading 5608.00 which inter alia covers articles of yarn not elsewhere specified or included. The contention of the appellants that since they are only used in pharmaceutical purposes in hospitals, etc., and since Note 3 to Chapter 30 excludes non-sterile sutures from the scope of that Chapter, non sterile sutures will not be goods leviable to duty under any Heading of the Tariff is not tenable, since such sutures are to be considered as articles of textile material not elsewhere specified and falling within the coverage of CET sub-heading 5608.00. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1999 (1) TMI 74 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... objection of the respondents and proceed to decide the case on merits. 3. emsp In the Bills of Entry under which the goods were assessed, CV duty was charged at the rate of 8 without specifying the Tariff heading however, it is confirmed by the respondents that 8 rate of duty was applicable to goods falling under T.I. 68 (and not to goods falling under T.I. 37AA) and further the Customs authorities had vide letters dated 22-2-1983, 23-2-1983, confirmed that the CV duty had been charged under Tariff Item 68. Therefore, this leaves no doubt that the imported item were charged to countervailing duty under Tariff Item 68. Hence having regard to the clear language of the proviso to Rule 56A(2) of the Central Excise Rules, we hold that the respondents are not entitled to proforma credit and it is immaterial whether they have claimed for classification under T.I. 68 for the purpose of CV duty or not. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1999 (1) TMI 73 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat - Declaration ... ... ... ... ..... e cross sectional diameter and also of those falling under various sub-headings. The Tribunal held that the main input being described itself is sufficient declaration for all those sub-items as well. In the case of C.C.E v. Larsen and Toubro Limited as reported in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 624 (Tribunal) 1997 (21) RLT 445, it was held that minor variations in description or tariff classification between inputs declared and those received should not be a ground for denial of Modvat credit. I notice that these judgments have a direct bearing with the present case and apply to the case. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside to the extent of non grant of Modvat on ldquo Phosphorous bronze strips rdquo to the extent of Rs. 1,09,209.31 and the appeal allowed is to that extent. However the order pertaining to dis-allowing the Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,000/- in respect of Main distribution frame is confirmed as it is not contested. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 72 - ITAT PUNE
Block Assessment, Computation Of Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... y lending business pertaining to the above 4 years. This amount was therefore available with the assessee for investment for which credit has to be given. Besides this, the assessee must have been receiving the money back from the borrowers which could be re-invested by the assessee. In the absence of any material on record in this regard, it cannot be said positively that there was any negative balance on the date stated by the learned D.R. Hence, this contention of the D.R. cannot be accepted. 12. Since it has been held that assessee has discharged his onus regarding his borrowings, the question of considering the contention of the learned Senior D.R. regarding unexplained investment u/s 69 does not arise. 13. In view of the above discussions, the impugned addition of Rs. 79,00,000 cannot be sustained. The order of the AO is, therefore, set aside on this issue and the impugned addition of Rs. 79,00,000 is hereby deleted. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 69 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... as Rs. 66,932. In the circumstances after issuing notice to the assessee, the AO enhanced the penalty from Rs. 66,932 to Rs. 1,57,132. When this order under s. 154 was appealed against by the assessee, the CIT(A) considered it of academic interest only because in his earlier appellate order No. CIT-R/161/89-90 dt. 10th May, 1990, he had cancelled the original penalty order itself on merits on the case. Therefore, he was of the view that the rectification order cannot survive and was to be treated as cancelled. 14. We have dealt with the original order dt. 27th March, 1989, in which penalty of Rs. 66,932 was levied by the AO and the CIT(A) rsquo s order thereon dt. 10th May, 1990, in ITA No. 3295/Ahd/1990 in paras 1 to 12 above. Since we have confirmed the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the levy of penalty in this case, there is no need for interference with the CIT(A) rsquo s decision with regard to the order under s. 154. 15. In the result, the appeal also stands dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 67 - ITAT RAJKOT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nd No. 5 relates to the addition on account of sale of scrap of brass and ground No. 6 relates to addition on account of sale of plastic scrap. We have discussed these issues in ground Nos. 11 and 12 respectively arising in the Revenue s appeal, discussed in paras 21 to 24 and 25 to 29 supra respectively. Consequently, these two grounds in the assessee s appeal are allowed. 40. Ground Nos. 7 to 9 are in respect of depreciation and investment allowance on mould, addition on account of suppression of production and disallowance of purchase of mould. All these three issues were set aside by the CIT(A) for reconsideration by the AO. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it was stated by the learned counsel for the assessee that these matters have been considered afresh by the AO in pursuance of the CIT(A) s order. Hence these grounds are dismissed as infructuous at present. 41. In the result, ITA No. 764 is dismissed and appeal in ITA No. 785/Ahd/90 is treated as partly allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 65 - ITAT NAGPUR
Block Assessment, Capital Gains, Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ular assessment has been completed and accepted in the partners cases, no undisclosed income can be assessed under section 158BC of the Act. Thus, having looked into deeply and having examined thoroughly, legal aspects and factual aspects of the subject-matter of appeal, we have come to the conclusion that both the legal and factual positions are in favour of the assessee and they tilt the balance and turn the scale in favour of and on the side of the assessee and its partners. Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing profit of Rs. 5,46,370 on estimate basis for allotment of 10 tenements to Sri Wasudeo Khemchandani and profit of Rs. 10,48,700 on estimate basis for allotment of 20 tenements to Sri Om Prakash Khemchandani as undisclosed income for the block period. Accordingly, the same are deleted. 47. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 63 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee as required under section 80HHC(3)(b) or the proportion of the turnover in respect of sales made to export house or trading house to the total turnover of the business carried on by the assessee as required under section 80HHC(3A)(b) or, as the case may be the proportion of the receipts specified in section 80HHD(2) to the total receipts of the business carried on by the assessee should be determined and the said proportion should be applied the amount arrived at (ii) above to determine the quantum of deduction under section 115J. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the above discussion we are inclined to accept the claim of the assessee in this regard and we direct that the sum of Rs. 8,85,690 be allowed under section 80HHC while computing the book profit under section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 61 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... ) for the earlier assessment year has been accepted by the Department in toto. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) also reveals that he has not merely based his opinion on the decision of his predecessor but has also drawn support from the decisions of various High Courts which are mentioned in his speaking order. A close reading of these decisions concur in the action of the CIT(A). 5. Apart from the above, the fact remains that the assessee is in the process of constructing the cinema theatre with a view to derive income from it. It is also a fact that the assessee has paid the sum claimed as deduction in its return of income, as interest towards borrowed funds, which facts have not been disputed by the Revenue. Under the circumstances and taking the totality of the case, we hold that the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on this account. We, therefore, uphold his order on this issue. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 58 - ITAT JAIPUR
Deemed To Accrue Or Arise In India. ... ... ... ... ..... assessee to M/s. Technimont of Italy is Royalty as defined in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Italy and hence liable to tax in India? This question alongwith the orders passed by the Members of the Tribunal were sent to the Hon ble President, ITAT, Bombay. The matter was allotted to Shri Nathu Ram, Accountant Member as Third Member who heard the parties in detail and passed his own order. The Third Member was in agreement with the findings of the Judicial Member. 2. The matter was listed for hearing on 1-1-1999 for passing the order as per the majority view. 3. Now after hearing both the parties and considering the order of the Third Member, this Bench finds that the view taken by the Judicial Member is approved by the Third Member. Therefore, in view of the majority decision we allow the appeal of the assessee. The order passed by the respective Members of the Tribunal form part of this order. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 57 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Penalty, Concealment Of Income, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... rests and penalties have been waived by the Commissioner, leaving only these matters in which related returns were filed in response to notices under section 148 without waiver of penalty, it is evident that there was a package settlement between the appellants and department. However, in these appellant proceedings, issue of notice under section 148 is not a hitch, and what clinches the issue is existence or otherwise of a reasonable cause and a case of concealment. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of these cases, we find that there is no act of concealment on the part of the appellants, and these cases are not fit for levy of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, penalties in all these cases under section 271(1)(c) are also liable to be cancelled. 10. We accordingly cancel the penalties under section 271(1)(a) as well as under section 271(1)(c) levied in these cases, and allow the appeals. 11. In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 56 - ITAT DELHI-E
... ...
... ... ..... ase, we find that the AO pointed out the defects in relation to the rate of depreciation. The CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee. The point apropos the allowability of claim was restored by the Tribunal to the AO. Tribunal rendered certain guidelines for deciding the issue. On the touch-stone of such guidelines, AO will decide the correct rate of depreciation. If the claim of the assessee in regard to the rate of depreciation is to be accepted, it will have its reflection on the book profit also. Book profit needs to be adjusted accordingly. The computation of deemed income under s. 115J will, therefore, be on the basis of said adjusted book profit. 23. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, restore this appeal to the file of the AO, with a direction to decide the same in the aforesaid manner. We further direct the AO to provide assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, for statistical purposes.
-
1999 (1) TMI 55 - ITAT DELHI-C
Computation Of Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... lable to its partners and how far the assets acquired by them from undisclosed income are covered by their share from such undisclosed income of the firm. 53. It is evident from the facts discussed that the AO has not adverted to this ground and examined the same on facts and circumstances and in light of the ratio of the decisions cited supra. We therefore, restore this issue with limited purpose to the file of the AO, with a direction to calculate the amount of relief allowable to the assessee in view of observations made in preceding paragraphs, having regard to all facts and circumstances involved and give a fresh finding therein after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 54. In the result ITA 6164/Del/1996, 6162/Dei/1996 and 6155/Del/1996 stand dismissed. ITA Nos. 6154, 6156, 6157, 6168, 6171 and 6172/Del/1996 stand partly allowed. ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6161, 6163, 6165, 6167, 6169 and 6170/Del/1996 stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
1999 (1) TMI 54 - ITAT DELHI-B
... ...
... ... ..... ve considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Admittedly, there was no evidence with the AO to show that assessee had earned any interest of pawning business during the year under consideration. It was a case of search and no document was seized by the Revenue to show that assessee earned any interest income from pawning business. The basis for the AO to make addition was the earlier year rsquo s income but that addition was not merely on account of interest from pawning business. Assessee surrendered some amount on account of different additions and there was no basis for comparison of earlier addition to the year under consideration. For want of evidence, no justification for making addition in the year under consideration and CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same. This ground also fails. 21. On the basis of above, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the Revenue has no force and liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.
....
|
