|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 161 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-B
Addition To Income, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Household Expenses, Minor Child, Unexplained Expenditure, Unexplained Investments
-
1996 (9) TMI 160 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A
Additions To Income, Amnesty Scheme, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Full And True Disclosure, Higher Rate, Income Tax, Secret Commission
-
1996 (9) TMI 159 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... so hereby clarified that while determining such specific rates of All Industry Rate of Drawback on the bicycles exported under Quantity Based Advance Licence we had not considered any duty incidence which may suffer on the such imported stickers as in the data submitted by the Council or the Exporters and no one had claimed the same. 11.Further, it has been clarified vide Para 3 of the said letter that at the time of disbursement of the All Industry Rate of Drawback, a further deduction in terms of Rule 3 of Duty Drawback Rules, 1971/1995 is not required until and unless it is specified under the Notes given under respective SS No. of the existing Drawback Table . 12.In fine the Proviso to Rule 3(1) of the Drawback Rules does not give authority to the officers of customs to make any reduction from the rate or amount of drawback fixed. Accordingly, the orders issued by the lower authorities are set aside and the revision applications are allowed. 13.It is ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (9) TMI 158 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
Brass scrap - Additional Duty of Customs - Interpretation of Statute - Amending Notification - Appeal - Maintainability
-
1996 (9) TMI 157 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Reference to High Court - Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... the new proviso to Rule 57G(2) is retrospective. 6.We are satisfied that the following questions of law arise for consideration and are required to be decided by the High Court. A statement of the case will be drawn up and reference made to the High Court. QUESTIONS OF LAW 1. Whether Rule 57E of the Rules states expressly what is implicit in Rule 57G(2) and as such is clarificatory ? 2. Whether the second proviso to Rule 57E of the Rules introduced with effect from 15-4-1987 is clarificatory and applies to all situations relating to adjustment, recovery and refund which had not become concluded and is retrospective in that sense? 3. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was in error in holding that the assessee was entitled to avail Modvat credit of differential duty paid during the period from 21-4-1986 to 2-4-1987 in respect of inputs received in the assessee s factory during 1986 and 1987 and utilised the same between 16-8-1987 and 30-12-1987 ?
-
1996 (9) TMI 156 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e authorities, it is but proper that both the authorities coordinate between them for deciding the case to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, by one authority choosing to decide the case, as per law. 14.As regards confirmation of demands and penalty in respect of crush stones , for longer period, I am of the opinion that the issue is also required to be remanded for de novo consideration, on this point only, as there is no evidence placed by appellant on bona fide belief. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellants be given opportunity to place their evidence, on both the aspects and argue their matter before the concerned authorities. 15.Ordered accordingly. 16. Order per Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T) . - I agree with the Order of ld. Member (T), Shri K. Sankararaman. FINAL ORDER 17.In view of the majority opinion, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. Sd/- (S.K. Dhar) Member (T) Sd/- (S.L. Peeran) Member (J) Sd/- (K. Sankararaman) Member (T)
-
1996 (9) TMI 155 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
Refund - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e 173J will not be applicable. 16.The last case referred to is reported in 1996 Vol. 65-III S.C.R. 155 (Pfizer Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India). In this case, though, the refund application was rejected by the Bombay High Court but while considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution, it was held that it was always the discretion of the Court to pass suitable orders. Each case has to be decided on its own. 17.After giving our thoughtful consideration and relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills and Triveni Structural Limited (supra), exercising the power to under Article 226 of the Constitution, we direct the respondent to refund the entire amount of 1,19,456.45 p. along with 6 interest to be calculated from the date of the deposit till the date of the refund, within a period of one month from today. 18.The petition succeeds and is allowed with Rs. 2000/- as costs to be paid by the Department within the same period.
-
1996 (9) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... officer. 4.In our view, in the present case, there was no question at all of applying the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs pointed out that there was a mistake in recovering Rs. 25,136.10 from the Petitioners. For that purpose, the Petitioner made an application for refund. Section 154 specifically provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order passed by an officer of Customs under the Act. Once that is corrected, the Petitioners are entitled to have refund of the said amount which is paid due to an arithmetical mistake. 5.In this view of the matter, this Petition is allowed. The impugned Order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and confirmed in Appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, and CEGAT is quashed and set aside. The Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 25,136.10 to the Petitioners on or before 30th November, 1996. Rule made absolute in the above terms.
-
1996 (9) TMI 153 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... to give evidence in their defence. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the persons whom summons were issued under Section 108, failed to put in appearance and, therefore, the question of cross-examining them would not have arisen and, therefore, the Tribunal was in error in observing that the petitioner failed to cross-examine the parties. This may be true that the question of cross-examining those whom summons were issued may not have arisen since they failed to appear pursuant to the summons issued to them. However, the fact remains that the Appellate Tribunal look into consideration the financial position of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of the case waiver except Rs. 20,000/- was reasonable. We do not see any prima facie illegality in such finding of the Appellate Tribunal, especially when no material was shown to establish that financial position was otherwise. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 152 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, sub-section (4) whereof states that save as provided in Section 35G or Section 35L, order s passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. Under Section 35G, a reference against the order of the Tribunal can be sought to the High Court. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that certain pleas raised by the petitioner regarding non-availability to the department of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Act, about the wrong calculation of the penalty have not been dealt with by the Tribubal and no finding has been recorded on these points. Sub-section (2) of Section 35C provides for rectification of mistakes and if there is any such lapse, as alleged by the petitioner, it can approach the Tribunal under Section 35C(2) and can also seek a reference under Section 35G. The petitioner thus has an efficacous alternative remedy and the writ peition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1996 (9) TMI 151 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... company. On this aspect of the matter, I feel that ends of justice will be served by directing the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rupees one crore in four equal instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- from 1-11-1996. The first instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- shall be paid on 1-11-1996, second instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- shall be paid on 1-12-1996, third instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- shall be paid on 1-1-1997 and the last instalment of Rs. 25,00,000/- shall be paid on 1-2-1997. On the payment of total instalments of Rupees one crore, the first respondent shall hear the appeal. It is open to the petitioner company to pay the above said amount in one lump sum if its financial resources improve. On the payment of the entire amount of Rupees one crore pre-deposited money, the first respondent-Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law within four weeks. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, no order is necessary in W.M.P. No. 17611 of 1996.
-
1996 (9) TMI 150 - SC ORDER
Appeal to Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... e judgment and order of the Tribunal under appeal is called for. Technicalities cannot be allowed to outweigh the merits. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Provisional assessment ... ... ... ... ..... i Verma that enough time having elapsed final approval order, ordinarily, should have been passed by this time by the respondents and if that is passed, then the controversy whether a provisional assessment under Rule 9-B can be made or not, would come to an end. It is also submitted that for the subsequent years the respondents have already made final approval order and it is not known why the final approval order has not been made for the year in question. 4. Be that as it may, as enough time has gone by since the impugned order was passed on 22-12-1989, it will be nothing but appropriate to direct respondent No. 1 to make a final approval order in this case as well within two months - which will not be construed as period of limitation for making final approval order from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner, who undertakes to produce the same within one week from today. For the reasons, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
-
1996 (9) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT
Insulators/bushings of 220 KV ... ... ... ... ..... ipment for the purpose of switching, changing and regulating the voltage from sub-transmission to primary distribution. The line between transmission and distribution is blurred and the Tribunal points out that the Department has not shown where transmission ends and distribution begins. If the item was intended to cover only suspended type of insulators and not bushing items as was contended by the revenue, this would have been specifically mentioned. The Tribunal rightly points out that it cannot be urged that the supply and distribution systems do not include the transmission or sub-transmission. The voltage of these insulators/bushings of 220 KV is many times more than the stipulated limit of 400 volts. The high voltage is clearly indicative of transmission system. Since there is a specific Entry 85.18/27(7) which is attracted, the residuary entry can have no relevance. For the above reasons, we see no merits in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 147 - SC ORDER
Tax Credit Certificate - Excise duty ... ... ... ... ..... n, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.) 1985 (2) SCC 719. 2. The second question is Whether the amount of the duty of excise payable by a manufacturer mentioned in Section 280ZD for the purposes of tax credit certificate postulated by that section and Section 280ZE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 means excise duty actually paid or excise duty leviable under the Excise Act? The High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 311) (S.C.) AIR 1963 SC 98, where it was held that the exemption granted by an exemption notification has effect as if enacted as a part of the statute. Accordingly, the High Court found no distinction between leviable and payable as propounded by the appellant. The decision of the High Court being based upon a decision of this Court, no further discussion is required. 3. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 146 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Writ jurisdiction - Alternate remedy ... ... ... ... ..... etitioners shall have freedom to submit reply, if not furnished so far, or additional reply, if felt necessary, within one month from today and to raise, if so advised, pleas of jurisdiction as well as discrimination vis-a-vis Remington and Godrej in matter of taxation on the principle that Like should be treated alike. (b) The petitioners may also apply to the appropriate authority, if necessary to requisition the records pertaining to levy of duty from Remington and Godrej for proper disposal of the notice (Annexure P/2) and the authority may consider such prayer, if warranted by facts and permissible by law. (c) The petitioners, in the event of adverse orders by the authorities, may have recourse to remedies available under the aforesaid Act. 17.The petition is, thus, disposed of in terms indicated above but with no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 2,000/-, if certified. Security cost, if any, shall be refunded after due verification.
-
1996 (9) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... two weeks from the date of service of copies of the documents as referred to above the writ petitioner shall file the reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority shall dispose of the adjudication proceeding by passing a reasoned order which has been initiated in pursuance of the show cause notice issued to the writ petitioner within four weeks from the date of filing the reply to the show cause notice. 4. The writ petition is, thus disposed of without any order as to costs. 5. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the dispute raised in the writ petition against the show cause notice issued by the Customs authorities. All questions are left open and to be decided by the Adjudicating authority. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Customs authorities the allegations made in the writ application are not admitted by them. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of the minutes of the dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1996 (9) TMI 144 - SC ORDER
Exemption Notification with fixed duration ... ... ... ... ..... nterest which moved the respondents to curtail the period of an Exemption Notification but, in the circumstances, it must be assumed that such public interest existed. No other view can now be taken in a matter which relates back to the year 1983. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 143 - SC ORDER
Sample - Re-testing ... ... ... ... ..... sked for a third test, by the Chief Chemist. But the question is whether the authorities were bound to grant their request. Nothing has been shown to us which obliged to the authorities to do so. No interference with the judgment and order is called for and the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Writ Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... der of the Tribunal does not arise. Whatever it may be, the learned single Judge has further safeguarded the interest of the appellants by enabling them to direct the writ petitioner to execute the necessary customs surety or security bond to safeguard the interest of the Revenue to cover the disputed amounts in case the contention of the appellants is accepted in appeal. That means, the Customs Department can very well insist for the solvent surety of the value sufficient to meet the amount involved in the case. It is not a mere personal bond. Unless the required surety with solvency certificate is furnished and accepted, the question of implementing the order of the Appellate Tribunal as directed by the learned single Judge does not arise. 2. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. However, the time allowed by the learned single Judge for implementing the order of the Tribunal is extended by two weeks from today. 3. C.M.P. No. 13035 of 1996 is also dismissed.
............
|
