|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 387 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Annual capacity of production - Determination of duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... nder the above mentioned Rule. The Tribunal has remanded the matters to the jurisdictional Commissioner for determination of actual production and redetermination of amount of duty payable by the assessee with reference to actual production, as envisaged under Section 3A(4) of the Act. Minakshi Castings order has been followed subsequently in several cases. Following the ratio thereof, we set aside the present impugned orders and remand the matters to the concerned Commissioner of Central Excise for determination of actual production and redetermination of duty payable by the 5 assessees with reference to such actual production as envisaged under Section 3A(4) and to pass an order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the appellants of being heard in their defence. The Commissioner shall also consider the submission of M/s. Venus Loga Udyog Ltd. that the capacity under Rules has been wrongly determined. 2. emsp The appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
-
1999 (5) TMI 101 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat credit for glass bottles and plastic crates used for packing of aerated waters ... ... ... ... ..... cluded the cost of packing material in the assessable value of the aerated waters manufactured by them. 2. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We see substantial merit in the plea of the DR that the certificate of the Chartered Accountant has been given undue weightage and is not sufficient for establishing the vital issue of inclusion of cost of packing material in the assessable value of the aerated waters. Since credit is available only if the cost of material has been included in the assessable value of the aerated water, we are of the view that the matter requires detailed and complete verification. Therefore, for this purpose, we remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) who shall satisfy himself on this aspect on the basis of evidence to be adduced before him by the assessees, who shall be heard by him before passing a fresh order. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by way of remand as indicated above.
-
1999 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... able for us to pursue this line of argument. 5. emsp In the judgment cited by the appellant, the Supreme Court held that the value of snap rings, sleeve lock devices and other accessories of ball bearings would not be includible in the assessable value of such bearing. It is not correct to say that this judgment does not support the appellant rsquo s case. In C.C.E. v. Kishor Pumps Pvt. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 91, the Tribunal, after considering a series of decisions on this aspect held that accessories fitted at the option of a buyer will not form part of the items to which they were getting. There is no dispute that fitment on generating sets on trailers was at the request of the defence forces. The ratio of this will apply to the facts of this case. 6. emsp Accordingly it has to be held that the cost of the trailers will not form part of the assessable value of the generation set. 7. emsp Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief, if permitted by law.
-
1999 (5) TMI 99 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Press - Turret punch press - Notification No. 154/86-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... mechanical press however without bringing any evidence to support their plea while the plea of the appellant was supported with evidence in terms of catalogue, technical literature which were examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and on being satisfied upheld their contention. In this case, several opportunities were granted to Revenue to establish their case and on one occasion the appeal was also dismissed for non-production of technical literature by Final Order No. C/1040/97-B2, dated 29-4-1997. Later, it was restored on request. But however, Revenue has not established their case to show that the item is a mechanical press. 3. emsp On careful consideration of the grounds, as well as after giving full opportunity to ld. DR in the matter to argue, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) is after due examination of the material literature, catalogue and hence there is no infirmity in the order and hence the appeal is dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 98 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption - Power - Benefit of Notification No. 62/87-C.E. not to be denied to articles of ropes.
-
1999 (5) TMI 97 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import trade control ... ... ... ... ..... country rsquo s Govt. and we find that this has been complied with by the appellants in the form of certificates from Ministry of Food, Govt. of Pakistan which has also been countersigned by the examining officer of Custom House, Karachi, therefore, we find that taking a holistic view of the evidence on record, the balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the importer. We also wish to be on record that in case the Govt. has clear intelligence and/or evidence that Pakistan and other specified countries are not allowed to cultivate Opium licitly, then the best course would have been to make such a specific announcement in the Import Policy through amending the present Notification referred to above. There is nothing on record to show that such a prohibition has been considered and imposed by the DGFT. 6. emsp Under these circumstances, we find that the Order-in-Original impugned needs to be set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Revision/Review - Penalty and fine ... ... ... ... ..... the basis of specific endorsement on the additional licence. In view of this the import of second-hand capital goods made by the party without any specific endorsement on the additional licence is unauthorised rdquo . Further, as rightly concluded by the Commissioner, the import of second-hand machines is neither prohibited nor banned but is permitted with some restrictions and conditions. These are the factors that had been kept in view by the Commissioner of Customs while arriving at the RF and penalty and the Department has not made out a case for enhancement of fine and penalty on M/s. Rydertrac Exports. 4. emsp The review order also does not disclose any grounds for interfering with the Commissioner rsquo s finding that the partners of the importer rsquo s firm are not liable to penalty because they are not personally involved in the case. We, therefore, sustain this finding also. 5. emsp In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals of the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 95 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Printed Circular Boards - benefit of Notification No. 232/83-Cus. as amended not available. ... ... ... ... ..... customs duty. The appellants have claimed that effective rate of customs duty in respect of direct current chokes is 70 ad-valorem as against higher effective rate. We find that 70 ad-valorem is in respect of insulated (including enamelled or anodised) electric wire, cable, strips and like (including co-axial cable) and other electric conductors, whether or not fitted with connectors. We find that direct current chokes are also not covered by the description of serial No. 2 of the table annexed to that notification. All the goods classifiable under sub-heading 8536.30 of the Customs Tariff are not covered by this serial number and only specified products are covered thereunder. 9. emsp Thus, with regard to direct current chokes and chokers, also we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Appellate Authority. 10. emsp Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into account, we do not find any merit in this appeal and thus, reject the same. Ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 94 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat on capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... f Modvat credit. In the present case the refractory cement is used for the lining of the furnace. Therefore, the facts of the case relied upon by the Revenue are different. In the other case relied upon by the Revenue the Tribunal held that the goods used for the maintenance of kiln had not be used in the manufacture of final product. In the present case as noticed above, the refractory cement is used for the lining of the furnace and the issue is whether it is a capital goods under Rule 57Q. 7. emsp The Tribunal in appellants own case vide Final Order No. A/774-775/97-NB, dated 26-9-1997 and Final Order No. A/397/98-NB, dated 9-6-1998 allowed the benefit in respect of the same product and the Tribunal held that the appellants are entitled the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules on Refractory materials. 8. emsp In view of the earlier decision of the Tribunal in appellants rsquo own case the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 93 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - Goods received by appellant ... ... ... ... ..... E.L.T. 434 (T) 1996 (15) RLT 68 , following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case, Citadel Fine Pharmaceutical reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.). I am, therefore, of the view that judgment in Osram Surya Pvt Ltd. has been delivered by the Tribunal in the peculiar facts available in that case. 6. emsp In any case even if the controversy regarding applicability of Rule 57G - whether retrospective or not is ignored in this case, there was no provision of time limit in Rule 57J at the relevant time in this case when the credit was taken. I have already held that provisions of Rule 57J will have an overriding effect over the provisions of Rule 57G. 7. emsp In view of the foregoing discussion, credit taken by the appellants under Rule 57J, even though after six months of the date of issue of the invoice has been wrongly denied by the lower authorities. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (5) TMI 92 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... al character of a machine part. There is no findings to that effect on record. We are, therefore, of the view, relying on Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case of Shivaji Works Ltd. (supra) that the Revenues has not proved that the goods in question have acquired the essential character of machine part falling under Chapters 84 to 87. The adjudicating authority rsquo s various findings are merely based on the broad shape of the goods. Inferring there from that it has the essential character is not at all adequate to give that finding. That finding has to based on the evidence taken from the experts or from the dealers in the trades of such parts in the business. We are of the view that the Revenue has failed to prove its case as alleged in the show cause notice or as found in the impugned order that the goods are machine parts or have the essential character thereof. Consequently we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1999 (5) TMI 91 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... fibre rsquo or textiles rsquo that the raw material used for the production of the HDPE strips is covered under Chapter 39 and in absence of anything on the record to show that the HDPE strips are synthetic textile material, the only fact that their width is less than 5 mm would not automatically put that item under entry 54.06. The Government also under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act has ordered classification of HDPE strips and tapes of a width not exceeding 5 mm under sub-heading 3920.32 and sacks made therefrom under sub-heading 3923.90 of the Tariff. A logical conclusion is that the fabrics made out of HDPE etc. would not merit classification under Chapter 54 or 59 as the raw material is not textile material. We also observe that in subsequent classification lists, the Department itself has approved the classification of the impugned product under Chapter 39 of the CETA. In view of these facts and circumstances we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1999 (5) TMI 90 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment, Additional Tax Under S. 143(1A) ... ... ... ... ..... ee under various heads while the words total income would mean income as finally computed under IT Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Departmental Representative that total income should include only sum total of the income before the set off of carried forward losses of earlier years cannot be accepted since total income has to be computed by applying the provisions of Chapters VI and VI-A. 7. In the present case, no doubt, there is increase in the income declared by the assessee under the head profits from business and profession and therefore, condition specified in cl. (i) is satisfied. But, despite that increase, the total income still remains as Nil as declared by assessee. Therefore, the second condition specified in sub-cl. (A) is not satisfied. Hence, levy of additional tax is bad in law and therefore, cannot be sustained. The order of CIT(A), is therefore, set aside and levy of additional tax by AO is hereby cancelled. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 87 - ITAT PUNE
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... ent was allowed in its entirety, the right to payment of enhanced compensation would have fallen altogether. It is because of this reason, the court held that right of the assessee to the enhanced compensation was an inchoate right. However, in the present case, the income accrued to the assessee on account of the sale of the plots which was never the subject-matter of the litigation. The sales of the plots were effected validly under a valid agreement and there was no dispute to such transactions. The terms of the agreement and the notice of termination of the agreement did not provide for the refund of such amount. There was no suit by the vendors for recovery of such amount. Therefore, the assessee was the absolute owner of the sale proceeds. In view of these distinguishing features, the decision of the Supreme Court cannot be applied in the present case. 10. In view of the above discussion, the order of CIT (A) is upheld. The appeal of the assessee is therefore dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 86 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... tees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Charity Trust is also of no assistance to the Revenue, because in the above referred case, the facts were entirely different. In that case, the trust was for the benefit of Vaishya Hindoos and it was specifically provided in the objects of the trust deed that the members of the Sakseria family will be given priority over other beneficiaries while in the case of the assessee, it is not so. All the relatives of the settlor are not given any priority over the other general charitable objects. It is pertinent to note that the above decision was considered and distinguished by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustees of K.B.H.M. Bhiwandiwalla Trust . 11. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee-trust is predominantly for charity and hence the trust is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. We accordingly uphold the finding of the CIT(A). 12. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 81 - ITAT PATNA
Block Assessment, Computation Of Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... which these flats have been constructed was taken on lease by the assessee HUF from TISCO in 1961 for a period of thirty years on annual lease rent of Rs. 87.55, Lease period expired in March 1991 and according to the learned counsel the lease has not been renewed for a further period. Most of these flats were agreed to be sold during the period from 1987 to 1990 and at that time there was no certainty that lease agreement shall be renewed beyond 1991. Under such circumstances the assessee HUF could not get substantial price for the land while agreeing to sell the flats. 7.14 On due consideration of all the facts and circumstances discussed and the ratio of various decisions cited, I agree with the view taken by the learned J.M. that the undisclosed income commuted of Rs. 42,18,134 in respect of the remaining fifteen flats sold is not justified and the same has been rightly deleted. 8. The matter now shall go to the regular Bench for decision on the basis of majority opinion.
-
1999 (5) TMI 79 - ITAT NAGPUR
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... he transaction. In the case of Udairaja Goliya (HUF) vs. Asstt. CIT, the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal held that the addition made on the basis of an indication of purchase of land and payment and that too supported by the statement of the broker under s. 131 and the seized paper cannot be upheld as the broker s statement was recorded at back of the assessee and no opportunity was provided to the assessee to cross-examine the broker. As far as the instant case is concerned, the broker denies the receipt or payment. The trust also denies the payment of any deposit or Pagadi. There is no paper seized evidencing the payment except the letters of the broker. In view of the above, we are of the view that there was no evidence for making the addition. In the light of the above discussion and on the basis of the decision cited supra, we hold that there is no basis to make the addition. The impugned addition is deleted. 31. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed in part.
-
1999 (5) TMI 77 - ITAT NAGPUR
Block Assessment in search case ... ... ... ... ..... e that this is imaginary rate, based on surmises and conjectures and is beyond human possibilities and probabilities. On this count and for this reason also the estimate of alleged on-money and treatment of same as undisclosed income cannot be upheld. 87. Looking at the issue from any angle, we come to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was absolutely wrong in arriving at the conclusion without any material and evidence that the assessee has taken on-money of Rs. 40 lakhs and has also erred in treating and assessing the same as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. In view of this as well as for the reasons mentioned in foregoing paragraphs, we hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing Rs. 40 lakhs as undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period and, therefore, the same is deleted. 88. Ground No. 4 is general in nature, as it is not pressed the same is rejected. 89. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 74 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... filed by the firm was in accordance with rule 22(4)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and the application filed in Form No. 11A was a good and valid application. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has not challenged and controverted the facts mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his order under section 185. It is also not the case of the assessee that all the conditions required for the registration have not been fulfilled by the assessee. As all the formalities for registration are observed, and all the conditions are fulfilled, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer was justified in granting registration to the firm. Since the assessee has failed to support the order of the CIT (Appeals) by producing solid material and by adducing cogent evidence, the order of the CIT (Appeals) is reversed and quashed and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored for the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 72 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... . It is not the case of the department that the assessee has in fact received the consideration sought to be substituted by the department. The Assessing Officer has also not come to the clear conclusion that the object of the transaction was to avoid or reduce the liability of the assessee under section 45. But he observes that it was done with an intention to reduce the wealth-tax liability of the assessee. In my view in the absence of a clear finding that there is an understatement of the consideration, the invocation of the provisions of section 52(1) in the facts and circumstances and in the light of the Supreme Court decisions and the decision of the Madras High Court, discussed above, is not justified and proper. I therefore, do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the CIT(Appeals). The addition made in respect of capital gains by invoking the provisions of section 52(1) is correctly deleted. I decline to interfere. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
....
|
