|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 427 Records
-
2003 (5) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Production capacity based duty - Abatement of duty ... ... ... ... ..... der Section 3A(4) and the other under Rule 96ZO(3). Rule 96ZO(3) provides for payment of excise duty on compounding basis. 19. The question as to whether Rule 96ZO is ultra vires the Act or not was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs v. M/s. Venus Castings (P) Ltd., reported in 2000 (117) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) JT 2000 (4) SC 77, and the Apex Court held that the same is not ultra vires the Act. It has also been held that if a manufacturer has availed of the benefit of the procedure under Rule 96ZO as his option, then he cannot claim benefit of determination of the excise duty under Section 3A(4) of the Act, which is specifically excluded. The petitioner, admittedly, having availed of the payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3), now cannot avail the procedure provided under Section 3A(4) of the Act. 20. In the result, there is not merit in this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. Order per R.S. Gerg, J. . - I agree.
-
2003 (5) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Port trust lien vis-a-vis Customs lien ... ... ... ... ..... y and fine were payable under the Customs Act, 1962, the position of law is clear that under Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the lien of the CPT, for its rates leviable on the goods in question, was to have priority over such claims, and under Section 63 of this Act the sale proceeds were to be applied in payment of port charges before applying any portion thereof in payment of such claims. The sale referred to in this Section 63 is the sale under Section 61 or 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, a right of the CPT in this case. Hence we find that the claim to the sale proceeds laid by the appellants has no legal basis. 8.For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this appeal, and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. The sale proceeds of the cargoes shall go to the CPT, which shall apply the same in the order as provided in Section 63 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. There will be no order as to costs. Judgment per A.K. Mathur, C.J. . -9. I agree.
-
2003 (5) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... rtificate clearly showed that M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant had paid the duty against the invoices issued to respondent no. 1. This was completely ignored by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Appeals. Thus, the Tribunal did not commit any error by relying upon the certificate issued by the Steel Authority of India Limited more so because it is not the petitioner s case that the inputs received from M/s. Bokaro Steel Plant had not been utilised by respondent no. 1 for manufacture of the final product. 5.We also agree with the Tribunal that the manufacturer s stamp on the invoices produced by respondent no. 1 for claiming Modvat credit of Rs. 2,686/- was a genuine document which could be relied upon for recording a conclusion that duty had already been paid by the manufacturer. 6.In the premise aforesaid, we hold that neither of the questions framed by the petitioner requires consideration by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (5) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... the appeals filed by similarly situated units have been allowed by the Tribunal, we deem it proper to give one opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount with a direction to the Tribunal to hear its appeal on merits. 7. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms (i) Within 2 months from today, the petitioner shall deposit the amount determined by the competent authority in pursuance of order dated 30-11-2000 passed by respondent No. 1. (ii) If the petitioner deposits the amount within the time specified, then the impugned order shall become inoperative and ineffective and the appeal filed by it shall stand restored and decided on merits. (iii) If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount in terms of (i) above, then no further action will be required to be taken by the Appellate Authority and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 8. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the fee prescribed urgent application.
-
2003 (5) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Modvat/Cenvat - Lapse of credit - Refund of credit ... ... ... ... ..... s following thereto must take place in accordance with the scheme under which duty had been paid on the manufactured products and if such a situation is sought to be altered, necessarily it follows that right, which had accrued to a party such as availability of a scheme, is affected and, in particular, it loses sight of the fact that provision for facility of credit as good as tax paid till tax is adjusted on future goods on the basis of the several commitments which would have been made by the assessee concerned. Therefore, the scheme sought to be introduced cannot be made applicable to the goods which had already come into existence in respect of which the earlier scheme was applied under which the assessees had availed of the credit facility for payment of taxes. It is on the basis of earlier scheme necessarily the taxes have to be adjusted and payment made complete. Any manner or mode of application of the said rule would result in affecting the rights of the assessees .
-
2003 (5) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Refund - Limitation - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... e 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. 4. 8195 In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court that even for refund of an illegal levy claim application has to be moved before the customs authorities within the period of six months, in my view, the present writ claiming the refund of the duty alleged to have been paid in excess will not be maintainable. Moreover, duty having already been recovered by the petitioners from the purchaser the petitioner would not be entitled to the refund of the alleged excess duty even if the same was an illegal levy. The petitioner cannot collect duty from his purchaser at one end and also collect the same duty from the State on the ground that the same was collected from him illegally. Power of the Court is not meant to be exercised for unjustly enriching a person. I, therefore, do not find any merits in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the import of the machines in question was contrary to law in any manner?
Whether the machines are liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962?
Held that:- Going through the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and the certificate issued by the Customs Authorities in our opinion, the GCS is immuned from any criminal proceedings pursuant to the certificates issued under the said Scheme and the appellants are being prosecuted in their capacity as office bearers of the GCS. As the Customs duty has already been paid, the Central Government has not suffered any financial loss. Moreover, as per the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 whoever is granted the benefit under the said Scheme is granted immunity from prosecution from any offence under the Customs Act, 1962 including the offence of evasion of duty. In the circumstances, the complaint filed against the appellants is unsustainable.
There is no prima facie case made out in respect of the alleged offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the charge sheet and the process issued thereunder has to be quashed. As the Customs Duty has been paid by the GCS, there is no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the GCS or its office bearers to retain the property. Moreover, there is no inducing on the part of the GCS or its office bearers intentionally to retain the property in view of the fact that the Customs Duty has been paid by the GCS and, therefore the ingredients of the offence of cheating are missing for issuing the process against the appellants and, therefore, the same, in our view, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
This Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant and quash the notice issued by the Department calling upon the appellant to explain as to why the order issued earlier under Section 90(1) KVSS be not amended.
-
2003 (5) TMI 62 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Rate of duty - Held that:- in answer to the show cause notice the respondent could have raised the dispute with regard to the rate and calculation of the duty as well as the valuation of the goods in question - Since the Tribunal has merely directed a remand of the matter, we do not interfere with the order but make it clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) will rehear the matter as directed by the Tribunal and will allow the parties to raise all issues as regards the valuation as well as the rate and calculation of duty - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2003 (5) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Seizure of Bank Account - Illegality - Interest payable ... ... ... ... ..... rect the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 to pay interest at the rate of 20 per annum on the amount lying in the said account to the petitioner (to be borne equally) from the date of withholding of the amount till date. The respondent No. 4, the bank will immediately permits the petitioner to withdraw the amount lying in the account if he intends to withdraw such amount unless in the meantime any competent court or authority has passed any other order of attachment over the said account. 18.I, however, make it clear that I have not gone into the question whether the transactions mentioned in the writ application had violated any of the provisions of the Customs Act and whether the petitioner is liable to get drawback in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act as the same is beyond the scope of this writ application. The writ application thus succeeds to the extent indicated above with costs which I assess at 300 GM to be payable by contesting Customs Authority.
-
2003 (5) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Demand (Customs) - Notification No. 64/88-Customs, dated 1-3-1988 - Held that:- Following decision of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer and Research Centre [2001 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it is held that provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside as there was no question of complying with the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. - in such cases provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act were not attracted because the said section covers cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside as there was no question of complying with the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act. - Decided in favour Revenue.
-
2003 (5) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Interest - Simple or compound ... ... ... ... ..... ority to pay the balance amount of interest at the prescribed rate viz 15 per annum simple not from date of making representation but after the expiry of three months from the date when claim for drawback will all necessary papers were submitted before the respondents authority as indicated above. Such balance amount should be paid within a month. The writ application and the interlocutory application mentioned above are disposed of with the above observations. 19.In the facts and circumstances there will be, however, no order as to costs. G.A. No. 635 of 2003 with W.P. 902 of 2001 20.Since the points involved are similar to the one earlier disposed of, this writ application is also disposed of with the similar direction by directing the respondent to pay simple interest on the principal amount at the rate of 15 per annum commencing from expiry of three months from the date of filing of the drawback claim till 28th December, 1996. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
2003 (5) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT
Cenvat/Modvat Credit - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicants are not eligible to Modvat Credit in respect of Ramming Mass, Fibre glass and filter mesh used in or in relation to the manufacture of pistons on the ground that they are covered under Proviso to Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. - Held that:- In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant facts are that the assessees claimed benefit of Modvat credit in respect of Ramming mass, Fibre glass and Filter mesh. These items are used in the process of manufacture of steel and without the use of these items the end product cannot be produced. The assessees in these cases are engaged in the manufacture of items of steel like pistons in the Escort's case. The manufacture takes place in electric arc furnace refractories. It is submitted on behalf of the assessees that during the course of manufacture steel is melted at a very high temperature. Steel produces acidic vapours when melted at such a high temperature. To contain the vapour and neutralise them, chemicals like dolomite or magnesite are used during the course of manufacturing process. Ramming Mass, fibre glass and filter mesh are processes in which chemicals are used to line the furnaces to neutralise the effect of acidic vapours produced during the course of melting steel. Unless these chemicals are used, the furnace may burst - Manufacturing process being the same in these cases, we hold that the assessees are entitled to Modvat credit on Ramming Mass, Fibre glass and filter mesh - Decided against Revenue.
-
2003 (5) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The appellant claims to be a sub-broker and engaged in purchase and sale of shares and debentures, etc. He was found to have made some cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 to the tune of Rs. 5,10,921 in violation of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act read with rule 6DD. Though he explained his position but the Income-tax Officer felt dissatisfied and ordered addition of Rs. 5,10,921 for the assessment year 1992 1993 by order dated October 4, 1993. He took appeal against this and the Appellate Commissioner by order dated July 6, 1994, directed its deletion –
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order resultantly becomes unsustainable and is set aside and that passed by the Appellate Commissioner is affirmed to allow this appeal.
-
2003 (5) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the second respondent has authority to issue summons under section 131 read with section 131(1A) - In the light of the clear averments made by the second respondent and in the light of the fact that the details called for as per exhibit P8 is only relating to distributors within the State of Kerala to whom the total commission, etc., paid during the accounting year amounted to Rs. 50,000 and above and fur their limiting the period from September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2001, and the power having been exercised by the second respondent as per the provisions specified under section 131(1A) of the Act and the fact that there is likelihood of concealment of income, it cannot be said that the second respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction while issuing exhibit P8.
-
2003 (5) TMI 54 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 - The petitioner submitted an application under section 65(1) in respect of the scheme, the petitioner claimed depreciation on machinery and cast iron moulds and gas cylinders. A search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act was carried out in the business premises of Mega Gas Pvt. Ltd., on March 6, 1996, and it was concluded on May 22, 1996. During the search proceedings it was detected by the Department that DDK Industries, Bangalore, from whom the petitioners claimed to have purchased the cylinders is a non-existent entity. - Respondents in terms of section 64(2)(ii) of the Scheme and in the light of an answer to question No. 29, decided to cancel the certificate issued under section 68(2) of the Scheme. Notice was issued in terms of annexure C calling for objections. Objections were filed in terms of annexure D. After considering the objections, the respondents cancelled the certificate in terms of annexure E. Thereafter they have issued annexures F, F1 and F2, notices under section 148. Those notices provide for an escaped assessment in terms of section 147. These proceedings are challenged by the petitioner. - I am unable to accept the arguments of the petitioner. The petition stands rejected.
-
2003 (5) TMI 53 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decision ignoring the fact that the Central sales tax and State sales tax collected by the assessee in the course of its business form part of the trading or business receipt?" - we are satisfied that section 43B of the Income-tax Act is not attracted at all when the assessee has not claimed any deduction of the amounts collected by it as the Central sales tax and the State sales tax.
-
2003 (5) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Whether the finding of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that the increase of only Rs. 100 per month in the salaries of three employees, namely, Shri Ali Ahmed, Mohd. Ali and Ajaz Ahmad, shall be reasonable or is arbitrary and in ignorance of the conditions laid down in section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act?" - we hold that the increase in the salary of employees, namely, Ajaz Ahmad and Ali Ahmad, is reasonable and that of Mohammad Ali is unreasonable taking into account the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 40A of the Act. - Our answer to the question referred to above is decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue.
-
2003 (5) TMI 51 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Obviously, the Explanation to section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act was introduced by the Finance Act, 2002, clarifying which are local authorities and excluding from them, corporations or authorities like the petitioner herein and the deletion of section 10(20A) of the Income-tax Act clearly indicates that the mischief sought to be remedied was to keep out corporations or authorities like the petitioner created under various enactments from claiming exclusion of their income under the Income-tax Act and to bring them within the purview of the Income-tax Act. If we apply the Heydons's case [1584] 3 Co Rep 7a rule it is clear that the intention in bringing in these amendments by the Finance Act of 2002 is to bring within taxation, the income of an authority constituted under any law enacted for the purpose of satisfying the need of housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of the cities, towns and villages, like the petitioner-authority. Since we are not in a position to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the income of the petitioner is exempt under article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, we are constrained to hold that the notification annexure P-1, is perfectly valid and cannot be successfully challenged on the ground urged by the petitioner-authority – Petition dismissed.
-
2003 (5) TMI 50 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
"(1) Whether, Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 3,00,000 on account of consultancy and liaison charges without there being a finding by the learned Assessing Officer that no services were rendered by Assam Vegetable and Oil Products Pvt. Ltd. to the appellant-firm? - (2) Whether, Tribunal was justified in making the disallowance under the head 'Land development' when it would be clear and evident from the records of the instant case that the land acquired was in the better interest of the trading activities of the appellant-firm? - (3) Whether, Tribunal was justified in making the disallowances under the head 'Additions' under section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act when, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be evident and clear that the appellant-firm in view of the unavoidable and explainable circumstances had to make the aforesaid cash payments. - The appeal is partly allowed
-
2003 (5) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessee, a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation - assessee claimed deduction on account of conveyance allowance for a sum of Rs. 9,600, additional conveyance allowance for an amount of Rs. 36,940 and 40 per cent. of the incentive bonus quantified at Rs. 50,175. - "(a) Whether the conveyance allowance/additional conveyance allowance received by the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation are exempt under section 10(14) of the Act? - (b) Whether the Development Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation are entitled to 40 per cent. deduction of the incentive bonus received by them as an expenditure incurred for earning incentive bonus?"
....
|
