|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 444 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 105 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... regard before the Tribunal on behalf of the company. Consequential relief with regard to levy of interest under section 215 is to be given while implementing the order of this Tribunal. The direction of the CIT(A) that the application under rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, said to have been filed by the assessee, should be disposed off at an early date, but remains undisposed of by the Assessing Officer, appears to us to be very reasonable and in accordance with the very prayer made by the company before the CIT(A), against which the company cannot have any complaint. Therefore, this ground is disposed off accordingly. 47. We make it very clear that there is no request for formation of special Bench in the case of the relevant departmental appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 and this Special Bench is, therefore, disposing off only the assessee s appeals for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. 48. In the result, the assessee s appeals are partly allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C
Refunds, Interest On ... ... ... ... ..... order i.e., 30th March, 1995 whereby self assessment tax paid by the assessee was adjusted by the A.O. towards the tax payable for the assessment year under appeal. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the assessee that interest is to be calculated from the actual day self assessment tax was paid by the assessee. 6.1 The judicial authorities relied upon by the ld. counsel support the case of the assessee that interest under section 244A is to be allowed if the refund has been worked out of self assessment tax payment. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Modi Industries Ltd. also supports the case of the assessee for grant of refund under section 244A. We would, accordingly, reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to grant interest on refund of excess payments made by way of self assessment tax from 31st March, 1995 to the date of granting the refund i.e., 30th September, 1996. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 103 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Business Loss, Capital Gains, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... he Neomer. The decision, therefore, does not help the assessee. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion as well as the principles governing the scope and ambit the word transfer and applicability of section 45 as enunciated in the various judicial pronouncements referred to above. we have no hesitation in holding that amalgamation of Neomer with the assessee-company does not entail transfer of shares held by the assessee-company and the provisions of section 45 arc therefore not attracted. The claim of the assessee for allowing of loss under the head Capital gains has therefore been rightly rejected by the authorities below. The alternative contention of the learned counsel is therefore, rejected. The ground of appeal relating to a deduction of Rs. 28,13,180 taken in ITA No. 4544/Ahd./ 1991 is hereby dismissed. 10. In the result, the ground of appeal regarding deduction of Rs. 28,13,180 is dismissed for both the assessment year i.e., assessment years 1984-85 and 1987-88.
-
1999 (3) TMI 102 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Drawback - Duty Drawback ... ... ... ... ..... hey purchased each set of these goods and FOB value declared thereof on Shipping Bill was from Rs. 1,196/- to Rs. 1,252/- and Rs. 1,388/- to Rs. 1424/-. In other words, the applicants have kept the difference of 14 to 16 between their cost price and declared FOB value. This difference can be said to include the profit margin, transportation and other charges incurred up to the time when goods are loaded on the ship for exportation. For sake of calculation this difference may be considered at the average rate of 15 . 20.Government feels that treating the ascertained market price at Rs. 210/- per set as the cost price of the impugned goods and by adding the above arrived at difference at 15 on account of transportation and other expenditure, the amount so arrived should approximate FOB i.e. Rs. 242/-. 21.Government would accordingly fix the FOB of the impugned goods at Rs. 242/- per set and the amount of drawback thereon may be settled as per law. 22.It is ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 101 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... going through the written submissions that the Revisionary jurisdiction under Section 35EE of the CEA, 1944 read with the first proviso to Section 35B(1) ibid is not attracted to the cases of claim of refund of the unutilised input credit under Modvat rules. In this connection attention is drawn to Government s earlier decision in the case of M/s. Polynova Industries Ltd. reported in 1994 (74) E.L.T. 466 (G.O.I.). In that case it was held that the claim of refund of credit of specified duties, under Notification No. 85/87 envisages refund of credit of duty and not rebate of duty paid and hence the Application was not maintainable in terms of Section 35EE of the CEA, 1944. 4. Applying the aforementioned ratio decidendi to the facts of the present case in Revision Government would hold that the Application is not maintainable it in Revision. 5. Accordingly Government orders return of the papers filed by the applicants for being filed before the appropriate Bench of the CEGAT.
-
1999 (3) TMI 100 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise)
... ... ... ... ..... Head Note). In the case of Rohit Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) 1997 (23) RLT 19 (Tribunal), it had been held that the differential price collected under the debit notes was to be added to the assessable value (refer para-11 of the decision). 16.In view of the above discussion in the case of the excisable goods which had been sold without approval at a particular non-declared higher price, while central excise duty was paid on the declared lower price and the matter of evasion of central excise duty is subsequently detected and central excise duty is subsequently demanded in respect of the differential price in terms of the Section 4 (1) read with Section 4 (4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, the amount of duty demanded could not be abated from the sale price. The question posed to this Bench as set-out in the beginning of the order proposed by the ld. Member (T) (now Vice President) is answered in the negative.
-
1999 (3) TMI 99 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exim - Import - Baggage - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... for trade purpose and would be construed as a matter of right. In the light of the discussions, Government views the grant of free allowance in the instant case as improper and sets-aside the same. 8.As regards relief granted in respect of the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed by the original authority, Government observes that this point has been raised only at the time of personal hearing. However, there is no objection from the respondent s Counsel for it s being raised subsequently. Government would like to give its view on this aspect. There is no doubt in this case that the pax is a carrier and the goods are meant for sale. This being the position, there is no scope for leniency with regard to reduction in personal penalty. The reduction in the redemption fine primarily on account of reassessment of value of part goods is, however, not interfered with. In the result, the Revision Application is disposed of in terms of the above. 9. It is ordered accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 98 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYD
Prosecution - Appellate Tribunal's decision - Effect of ... ... ... ... ..... rity had escaped assessment and the Tribunal held that there was no such concealment. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and hence the prosecution cannot be sustained. 5. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice another judgment of the Supreme Court in Uttam Chand v. Income Tax Officer 1982 (2) SCC 543 . In this case, the registration of the firm was cancelled on the ground that it was not genuine and prosecution was initiated for filing false return. The Tribunal found that the firm was genuine. On the basis of that finding, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must be quashed. 6. In the cases on hand also, there is a finding of the Tribunal that no offence is made out. In this view of the matter, the prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No. 19/93 and C.C. No. 52/94 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad is quashed. 7. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (3) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Refund (Customs) - Civil court - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... he protection given to the Central Government and its officers in respect of the act done by them in good faith under the Act. Judgment in Mansinghka s case does not deal with the exclusion of civil court s jurisdiction in respect of any refund claimed either u/S. 11B of the Act of 1944 or Section 27 of the Act of 1962. In any case the decision of the apex Court in Mafatlal (supra) sets at rest any controversy on the point and there can be no manner of doubt that in respect of any claim for refund of duty paid under any of the aforesaid two Acts, jurisdiction of civil court is barred and the claim, if any, has to be preferred and adjudicated upon under the aforesaid provisions of the Acts. 8.The Court below was thus right in holding that the jurisdiction of civil court was barred in the matter. The plaintiff has been rightly non-suited and no case for interference in appeal by this court is made out. 9.The appeal thus fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT
Ship Stores ... ... ... ... ..... he appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dismissed. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is preferred. The present case seems to be of the year 1984. No stay order was granted. Further on the fact recorded by the High Court ... after the petition was disposed of by the trial court and the appeal was filed by the original petitioner Company which was a foreign company was taken over by the Government of India and today the petitioner are the fully owned Government-Company. Therefore, the fight is purely academic between Government of India and its own Company. and the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it is not a fit case to go into the question raised in this appeal. 5.In the present case both learned single Judge and the Division Bench of High Court having decided the case against the appellant, we dismiss this appeal leaving the question of law open. However, on the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Departmental clarification - Board's Circular ... ... ... ... ..... ore particularly when that aspect would require examination of facts. He submitted that the circular is issued for the reasons indicated in the preamble of the circular itself. We are not able to agree with the contention raised by Mr. Patel for the simple reason that the Tribunal not in one but more than one decisions, has given positive finding that entry under sub-heading 2302.00 under Heading 23.02 relates to Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, including dog and cat food. Preparation of food of a kind used in animal feeding including dog and cat food would be covered by sub-heading 2302.00 and under Heading 23.02. There is a positive finding then there is no need to have a negative finding when the product is not covered by Heading 28.35 or under any other sub-heading. 6.In view of what we have stated hereinabove, the Special Civil Application is allowed. The impugned Circular Annexure D No. 47/1/97-C dated 3-3-1997 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.
-
1999 (3) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Penalty (FERA) ... ... ... ... ..... s as per the specifications which were given by them, but of the value of Rs. 5,600/- instead of Rs. 5,000/-. The said imports, however, were made bona fide. The Customs Authority had only found that the value of the imported items exceeded slightly for which the penalty was already imposed on the Appellants. Even if there is violation, under the provisions of the Customs Act, it was only technical for which the appellants had paid penalty under the Customs Act. 8.In any way, since the authorities have not been able to show the contravention of the provisions of the FERA, there is no question of imposing penalty on the appellants under FERA. The appeal is thus entitled to succeed. 8In the result the appeal, is allowed. The impugned orders of Deputy Director of Enforcement dated 17-2-1981, confirmed by the FERA Board in Appeal No. 132/81 by the order dated 28-8-1982 are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... as illusory or arbitrary. This decision was given following the judgment in Anant Mill Co. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 S.C. 1234 . I need not multiply the citation. The only point which has to be seen is whether the restriction imposed in restricting the delay of filing of appeal is violative of any provisions of the Constitution. Even the right to carry on the business could be with a reasonable restriction. It is not that the demand created by an authority under the Act is made absolute without any right of appeal. The provisions of Section 35 therefore cannot be considered to be violative of any provision of the Constitution of India. Once this conclusion is arrived at, this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 cannot direct to act contrary to the statutory provision or declare them unconstitutional. Since the statute itself has provided a limitation, the right has to be exercise within that period. No case of interference is made out. Petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (3) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme - Pending dispute ... ... ... ... ..... elay and the amount has not been paid as application for condonation of delay has been made. Entire clarification has to be read and a sentence cannot be picked up for a construction. It may not apply to a situation where stay application was earlier rejected as a result of which the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the matter and the CEGAT passed an order which is a conditional one. In view of this, we find no force in the arguments of Mr. Dave. It is required to be noted that in the instant case, as the appeals were not pending, the order, dated 10-2-1997 came to be passed. The views of the Commissioners. Central Excise, Ahmedabad, are that there is no dispute to resolve under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. 1998. If the appeal was pending, the situation would have been quite different. 16.In view of what we have stated above, we find no merits and the petitions stand dismissed with cost which is quantified at Rs. 5000/- in each petition. Rule in each petition is discharged.
-
1999 (3) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ... ... ... ... ..... In amendment application, it is prayed before this Court that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) should be quashed and set aside and the delay should be condoned. As the order Annexure-E is already quashed and set aside, it goes without saying that the order is now required to be passed under the Scheme in accordance with Sections 89 and 90 of the Scheme. Even if the delay is not condoned, it would not make any difference. Reading the orders, it appears that the authority has not considered the crucial question while rejecting the application. Therefore, the authority - Commissioner (Appeals) shall consider the question of delay as and when the occasion arises. It goes without saying that the declaration was rejected vide Annexure- E on the ground which cannot be said to be just and proper and therefore time as mentioned in Section 90(1) shall begin from the date of the order passed by this Court. The petition stands allowed accordingly, with no order as to cost.
-
1999 (3) TMI 90 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... ould have certainly come under para 7. Merely because the goods are distributed by some other Company/Agency and their name and logo are printed on the cartons of specified goods, it cannot be said that they are identified with the user of the brand-name in question. In the absence of any material that M/s. Indoco Remedies Ltd. are also producing a combination of betamethasone and neomycin under the brand name betnor , or using the brand-name/trade-name betnor , for any of their produces, petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. . 4.We, therefore, allow the Writ Petition, quash and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji on 6th May, 1991 and by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, on 26th November, 1992 and declare that the petitioners were entitled for the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the goods cleared. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT
Refund of pre-deposit - Departmental clarification ... ... ... ... ..... his view of the matter, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant and the claim made by the appellant will have to be upheld. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent brought to our notice that when the matter was filed before the CEGAT, a conditional stay order had been granted directing the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 4,44,000/- and on compliance thereof, the balance amount of duty shall stand waived till the disposal of their appeal and that amount should not be released to the appellant until he establishes that he has not wrongly enriched himself by collecting duty from his customers. It is not clear that he amount paid is in a condition for waiving of payment for grant of stay by the appellate authority and not duty which is to be refunded. In that view of the matter, we do not think that there is any reason to accede to the contention advanced by the respondent. 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 88 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... beyond the material time. 10.As I have said, about fraud, suppression and wilful evasion there is no material on record although the phrase wilful evasion is used in the show cause notice. A bare perusal of it shows that even the Collector is merely worried about the interpretation of the notifications and their applicability to platinum wires. 11.Dr. Pal also cited many cases in support of his client s case. He left no stone unturned and that is understandable because the claim is heavy. 12.But on the short point that the matters do not involve fraud or suppression and that many six months had elapsed from the period in question until the service of the show cause notice, the writ application must succeed. The show cause notice impugned herein dated 9th March, 1988 in quashed. 13.For abundant caution it is also ordered that whether issued or not there will be Rule Absolute as prayed for in the writ petition. 14.Let copies the dictated order issue on the usual understandings.
-
1999 (3) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... 1.Excuses are made in the writ petition that export could not be made because of World recession and labour agitation. These are very vague phrases. Hard facts about how much the Silk was sold for indigenously, when and to whom are not whispered about. 12.It is quite clear that the writ petitioner does not wish to make full disclosure even before the writ Court. 13.In these circumstances, even if there might be something in the interest point, it would be quite contrary to settled principles to grant any discretionary relief to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner s application does not deserve to be entertained on the basis of the sketchy and incomplete allegations. The application is rejected in limine. 14.The allegations in the petition are not admitted and the submissions are not conceded as Shri Roy wished to have it recorded on the part of his clients. 15.Parties and all others concerned to act on a xerox signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertakings.
-
1999 (3) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Appeal - Order - Implementation of ... ... ... ... ..... in the Supreme Court for staying the operation of the CEGAT order. 8.Nor it is for the High Court to direct a party to approach the Supreme Court when the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders vests in the High Court. Doing so would be shirking duty and not giving relief even when one is entitled to give it. 9.More than one year having passed from the date of the CEGAT order it appears to be unreasonable that the respondents do not give it full effect even now. 10.The order and observations are without prejudice. 11.Rule as prayed for. 12.Matter is made returnable 16 weeks hence. 13.The writ petitioners will pay rent charge for interim release for the present but will be entitled to claim it from the respondents in case they ultimately succeed in the writ. 14.There will be interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (h) of the writ petition. 15.All parties and all others concerned to act on an authenticated signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.
............
|
