|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 509 Records
-
1998 (8) TMI 110
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of undisclosed income of Rs. 1,88,59,400 as 'on money'/premium.
2. Validity of the addition of Rs. 1,58,59,400 to the disclosed income.
3. Application of net profit rate on unaccounted sales/receipts.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment of Undisclosed Income
The assessee, a partnership firm, was involved in the supervision and booking of flats for two cooperative societies. A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) against the architect of Uday Towers led to a consequential search against the assessee. The assessee declared an undisclosed income of Rs. 30 lakhs in response to a notice u/s 158BC. However, the AO found evidence suggesting that the assessee charged 'on money'/premium of Rs. 190 per sq. ft., leading to an addition of Rs. 1,88,59,400 for the entire project.
Issue 2: Validity of the Addition
The AO based the addition on a seized paper indicating a higher rate of Rs. 455 per sq. ft. for certain flats, while the documented rate was Rs. 265 per sq. ft. The assessee argued that the extra amount was for additional work, not 'on money'. The AO rejected this explanation, relying on the Supreme Court decision in CST vs. Esufali Abdulali, and made an addition of Rs. 1,58,59,400 after crediting the declared Rs. 30 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the seized paper and the presumption u/s 132(4A) was misplaced, as the paper was found with the architect, not the assessee.
Issue 3: Application of Net Profit Rate
The Tribunal noted that even if 'on money' was charged, the entire amount could not be treated as income. Only the net profit rate should be applied to the unaccounted receipts, as per the decision in ITO vs. Gurubachan Singh J. Juneja. The assessee's net profit rate was 1.31%, and applying this to the unaccounted receipts would result in an income less than the Rs. 30 lakhs already declared. Thus, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the additional Rs. 1,58,59,400.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 1,58,59,400 was deleted. The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in making the further addition, as the net profit rate applied to the unaccounted receipts was covered by the undisclosed income already declared by the assessee.
-
1998 (8) TMI 109
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of retention deposit against contract receipts.
2. Deletion of addition on account of revaluation of assets.
3. Deletion of arbitration claim taxed on a protective basis.
4. Determination of the previous year ending date for the assessment year 1985-86.
5. Addition of sanctioned claim amounts.
6. Interest under section 215 of the Income Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Retention Deposit Against Contract Receipts
The first ground of appeal concerns the deletion of the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the adjustment of the retention deposit against contract receipts amounting to Rs. 3,59,432. The AO contended that this amount represented the difference in retention deposits received by the assessee but not offered for income during the assessment year. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the assessee had declared total receipts based on the work bill submitted and that the short receipt was due to retention money debited to the Executive Engineer's account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the retention money had already been accounted for in the work bills and included in the total receipts, thus requiring no further addition.
2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Revaluation of Assets
The second issue pertains to the deletion of the addition of Rs. 53,25,000 made by the AO on revaluation of assets. The AO based this addition on the Supreme Court's decision in A.L.A. Firm vs. CIT. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the Supreme Court's decision was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal concurred, noting that the assets and liabilities were taken over by the company as a running concern, and no assets were left except contingent assets. The Tribunal emphasized that the revaluation of assets could not be justified as the assets were not distributed among the partners but were transferred to the company.
3. Deletion of Arbitration Claim Taxed on Protective Basis
The third issue involves the deletion of the arbitration claim taxed on a protective basis. The AO had treated the receipt of Rs. 1,12,09,700 from the arbitrator as the firm's income for the assessment year 1985-86. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that the income accrued for the assessment year 1988-89. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Gujarat High Court's ruling that the firm was dissolved and the transfer of business was genuine. The High Court had concluded that the firm could not be taxed for the receipt as it had ceased to exist, and the amount was to be received by the partners.
4. Determination of the Previous Year Ending Date for the Assessment Year 1985-86
In the assessee's appeal, the first effective ground was that the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the previous year for the assessment year 1985-86 ended on 31st March, 1985. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention, noting the High Court's acceptance that the firm was dissolved by the deed of dissolution dated 16th August, 1984. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the previous year ended on 16th August, 1984.
5. Addition of Sanctioned Claim Amounts
The next ground in the assessee's appeal concerned the addition of Rs. 2,48,944, which was sanctioned on 26th September, 1984, and 23rd November, 1984. The AO added this amount to the assessee's income, and the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal found that the High Court had recognized the firm's dissolution and the arrangement that dues arising from the settlement with the Government would go to the partners. The Tribunal noted that the amounts received by the erstwhile partners were already taxed in their hands for the assessment year 1986-87, thus the addition could not be sustained.
6. Interest Under Section 215 of the Income Tax Act
The ground regarding interest under section 215 of the Act was deemed consequential in nature. The remaining grounds in the assessee's appeal were not pressed.
Conclusion
The appeals resulted in a dismissal for the Revenue and a partial allowance for the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on the deletion of additions related to retention deposits, revaluation of assets, and arbitration claims. It also agreed with the assessee on the determination of the previous year ending date and the non-sustainability of the addition of sanctioned claim amounts. The interest under section 215 was treated as consequential.
-
1998 (8) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 40,722 under section 37(3) of the I.T. Act read with rule 6B for gift articles.
2. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 94,203 under section 37(4) r.w.s. 37(5) for guest house expenses.
3. Treatment of subsidy amount for the purpose of depreciation and investment allowance.
4. Computation of book profit under section 115J, specifically regarding the method of depreciation.
5. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 40,722 under Section 37(3):
The assessee-company, M/s. Bell Ceramics Ltd., filed its return for the assessment year 1990-91, detailing expenses on articles presented exceeding Rs. 200 amounting to Rs. 40,722. The Assessing Officer (AO) added this amount to the total income, considering it as advertisement expenses under rule 6B. However, the first appellate authority deleted this addition, relying on judicial precedents. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the Bombay High Court's ruling in CIT v. Allana Sons (P.) Ltd., affirming that the expenses were for promoting business relations, not advertisement.
2. Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 94,203 under Section 37(4) for Guest House Expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 94,203 out of Rs. 1,09,300 claimed by the assessee for guest house expenses, applying section 37(4). The assessee argued that these expenses were allowable under section 30. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, referencing the Gujarat High Court's rulings in CIT v. Maharana Mills Ltd. and CIT v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd., which allowed such expenses under section 30.
3. Treatment of Subsidy Amount for Depreciation and Investment Allowance:
The CIT(A) ruled that the subsidy amount should not be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation and investment allowance purposes. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd., which supports the assessee's stance. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, declining to interfere.
4. Computation of Book Profit under Section 115J:
The assessee prepared its profit and loss account using the Written Down Value (WDV) method for depreciation for section 115J purposes, while the printed annual report used the straight-line method. The AO computed book profits based on the printed report, but the CIT(A) directed to recompute using the WDV method. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, interpreting section 115J(1A) to allow different depreciation methods, provided the profit and loss account conforms to Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act. The Tribunal noted the absence of a requirement in section 115J for the profit and loss account to match that presented at the annual general meeting.
5. Charging of Interest under Section 234B:
The CIT(A) directed not to charge interest under section 234B, a decision supported by the Tribunal's ruling in Samir Diamond Mfg. Co. v. Asstt. CIT. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that liability under section 115J could not be determined at the time of advance tax payment, thus negating the interest charge under section 234B.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all grounds.
-
1998 (8) TMI 107
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's order dated 18-11-1996 should be rectified.
2. Whether the income derived from the nursery business is agricultural income.
3. Whether the Tribunal ignored important documents and evidence, including the survey report under section 133A.
4. Whether the Tribunal has the power to recall its own order under section 254(2).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the Tribunal's order dated 18-11-1996 should be rectified:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal's order should be rectified due to errors in the observation that the CIT (A) did not hear the appeals for the assessment years 1978-79 and 1990-91. The assessee claimed that the CIT (A) did not follow the appellate order for the assessment year 1986-87, which was in favor of the assessee, and did not provide an opportunity to the assessee's counsel to explain. This was argued as a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal was requested to rectify the order in favor of the assessee.
2. Whether the income derived from the nursery business is agricultural income:
The Tribunal initially held that the income from the nursery business was not agricultural income as defined under section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and hence not exempt under section 10(1) of the Act. The assessee contended that the income was agricultural, supported by a survey report under section 133A, which indicated that the income derived from the nursery was agricultural. The Tribunal's decision was based on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, and the Allahabad High Court's decision in H. H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that the income from nursery business was not agricultural.
3. Whether the Tribunal ignored important documents and evidence, including the survey report under section 133A:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal ignored crucial evidence, including the survey report under section 133A, which stated that the income was derived from agricultural processes. The Tribunal acknowledged that it had not considered the survey reports and the opinion of the Assessing Officer regarding the nature of the income. The Tribunal decided to recall the order to give proper justice to the arguments and evidence presented.
4. Whether the Tribunal has the power to recall its own order under section 254(2):
There were conflicting judicial decisions regarding the Tribunal's power to recall its own order. The Orissa High Court held that the Tribunal has no power to recall an order under section 254(1), while the Allahabad High Court opined that the Tribunal could rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal decided to adopt the view in favor of the taxpayer, as per the Supreme Court's principle in CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that ignoring evidence obtained at its behest constituted a mistake apparent from the record, warranting a recall of the order.
Separate Judgments Delivered by the Judges:
Majority Opinion:
The majority opinion, delivered by the Vice President and supported by the Third Member, held that the Tribunal should recall its order to consider the overlooked evidence, including the survey report under section 133A. The majority emphasized that the Tribunal must consider evidence obtained at its own direction and that failing to do so would be an unceremonious disposal of the appeal.
Dissenting Opinion:
The dissenting opinion, delivered by the Accountant Member, held that the Tribunal's order should not be recalled. The dissent argued that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered the arguments and judicial precedents, and any review of the order would amount to an impermissible review rather than a rectification under section 254(2). The dissent also noted that the Tribunal had not directed any Departmental Representatives to visit the site, and the so-called report was extraneous evidence not required to be considered.
Conclusion:
The majority opinion prevailed, and the Tribunal decided to recall its order to ensure proper justice by considering the overlooked evidence. The miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee were allowed, and the case was directed to be fixed within a month for further proceedings.
-
1998 (8) TMI 106
Issues:
1. Excess depreciation claimed for computing book profit under section 115J.
2. Allowability of depreciation not claimed by the assessee.
Issue 1: Excess Depreciation for Computing Book Profit:
The appeal by the Revenue related to the assessment year 1989-90, concerning excess depreciation claimed in the books for computing book profit under section 115J. The AO found that the assessee had debited depreciation higher than prescribed in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act, 1956. The CIT(A) held that the rates in Schedule XIV are not mandatory but represent minimum rates for profit computation. The company had been using higher rates supported by an engineer's certificate due to manufacturing risks. It was concluded that providing depreciation at rates stipulated in IT Rules, 1962, higher than Schedule XIV, is valid. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on a similar case precedent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Issue 2: Allowability of Depreciation Not Claimed:
Regarding the allowance of depreciation not claimed by the assessee, the AO added the unclaimed depreciation amount to the total income under normal IT Act provisions. The CIT(A) emphasized that for depreciation to be allowed, the assessee must claim it, even though the requirement of furnishing particulars was eliminated due to a rule deletion. Citing various judgments, the CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the unclaimed depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this decision based on jurisdictional High Court rulings, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.
-
1998 (8) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment of income discrepancy.
2. Determination of the assessment year for capital gains.
3. Determination of market value of the land as on 1st April, 1981.
4. Estimation of the sale consideration of the land.
Summary:
Issue 1: Assessment of Income Discrepancy
The AO assessed the appellant's income at Rs. 21,56,514 against the returned income of Rs. 2,57,555. This was a common substantive ground in all three appeals.
Issue 2: Determination of the Assessment Year for Capital Gains
The AO held that the capital gain from the sale of land fell in the asst. yr. 1994-95, not in asst. yr. 1996-97 as contended by the appellants. The AO based this on the possession of land being handed over in November 1993 and part-payment received, invoking s. 2(47)(v). The Tribunal found that s. 2(47)(v) requires a written contract, which was absent here. Therefore, the capital gain should be assessed in asst. yr. 1996-97, as declared by the assessees.
Issue 3: Determination of Market Value of the Land as on 1st April, 1981
The AO took the market value of the land at Rs. 3,60,950 against the assessees' claim of Rs. 7,31,200 based on an approved valuer's report. The Tribunal upheld the AO's valuation, noting the valuation of structures and the tenanted status of the land.
Issue 4: Estimation of the Sale Consideration of the Land
The AO estimated the sale consideration at Rs. 1,38,79,800, not Rs. 36 lakhs as admitted by the assessees. This was based on a seized paper indicating a higher rate per sq. yd. The Tribunal found the paper to be a "dumb document" lacking necessary details and signatures, and noted consistent statements from all parties involved that the sale price was Rs. 36 lakhs. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in adopting the higher sale consideration and allowed the assessees' declared amount.
Conclusion:
The appeals were partly allowed, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the assessees on the issues of the assessment year for capital gains and the sale consideration of the land, while upholding the AO's valuation of the land as on 1st April, 1981.
-
1998 (8) TMI 104
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty levied under Section 273(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Evaluation of the assessee's estimate of advance tax.
3. Assessment of the assessee's bona fide belief and knowledge at the time of filing the estimate.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the penalty levied under Section 273(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961:
The appeal concerns the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 confirmed by the CIT(A) under Section 273(2)(a) of the IT Act, 1961. The AO had initially levied a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was subsequently reduced by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed because the advance tax payable based on the assessee's estimate was less than 75% of the assessed tax.
2. Evaluation of the assessee's estimate of advance tax:
The assessee filed an estimate under Section 209A(1) in Form No. 29 on 15th June 1983, estimating its income subject to advance tax at Rs. 3,38,000 and advance tax payable at Rs. 2,25,192. The AO completed the assessment on 27th March 1987, determining total income at Rs. 26,86,310, which was later reduced to Rs. 26,85,130 by the CIT(A). The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 273(2)(a) because the advance tax estimate was significantly lower than the assessed tax.
3. Assessment of the assessee's bona fide belief and knowledge at the time of filing the estimate:
The assessee argued that the accounts were not completed at the time of furnishing the estimate, and thus, the correct income could not be estimated. The AO rejected this contention, stating that the actual figures for the previous year were available, implying that the estimate should have been more accurate. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee should have been aware of the profitability for the period relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 and should have filed a higher estimate. The CIT(A) concluded that there was no reasonable cause for the low estimate but acknowledged a possible margin of error due to the incomplete accounts for the previous year.
Judgment:
The Tribunal noted that the penalty under Section 273(2)(a) is applicable only when the assessee knowingly furnishes an untrue estimate. The Tribunal found that the assessee's estimate was based on the accounts available at the time and that the assessee had a bona fide belief in the accuracy of the estimate. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Revenue failed to prove that the estimate was untrue or that the assessee had reason to believe it was untrue. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unjustified and ordered its deletion.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the penalty under Section 273(2)(a) was deleted, as the assessee's estimate was deemed to be made in good faith based on the available information, and the Revenue failed to prove otherwise.
-
1998 (8) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the sum of Rs. 45,28,899 representing the license premium as income from other sources instead of business income.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 25,000 out of telephone expenses.
3. Charging of interest under section 234B.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Classification of License Premium
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 45,28,899, representing the license premium, should be classified as income from other sources or business income. The assessee argued that the receipt of the 8% premium falls within the ambit of clause (iiib) of section 28, which states "any cash assistance (by whatever name called) received or receivable by any person against export under any scheme of the Government." The assessee contended that this premium was given to compensate for the increased import costs due to the full convertibility of the rupee and should be considered business income eligible for deduction under section 80HHC.
The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, treating the premium as income from other sources, thereby disallowing the deduction under section 80HHC. The tribunal, however, held that the 8% premium received by the assessee from the government falls under clause (iiib) of section 28 as "cash assistance by whatever name called," thus qualifying as business income. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 80HHC.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Telephone Expenses
The AO disallowed Rs. 25,000 out of the total telephone expenses of Rs. 1,35,524, attributing Rs. 10,000 to office telephone expenses and Rs. 15,000 to residential telephone expenses, citing personal use by the partners and their family members. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. However, the tribunal opined that disallowing expenses for the office telephone was improper but upheld the Rs. 15,000 disallowance for the residential telephone due to personal use. Thus, the addition was sustained to the extent of Rs. 15,000.
Issue 3: Charging of Interest under Section 234B
The assessee's appeal included a ground related to the charging of interest under section 234B. However, no specific arguments were advanced in support of this ground. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed this ground but directed the AO to recalculate the interest chargeable under section 234B after giving effect to the appeal.
Conclusion:
The tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on the classification of the license premium as business income and sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 15,000 for telephone expenses. The issue related to the charging of interest under section 234B was dismissed but required recalculation by the AO.
-
1998 (8) TMI 101
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Clause (iv) of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.)
2. Condonation of delay in lodging rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944
3. Applicability of Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in granting rebate upon exports
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Clause (iv) of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.):
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Clause (iv) of Notification No. 41/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994, which specifies the time limit for lodging rebate claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant Commissioner argued that the notification must be strictly followed without any scope for relaxation, citing relevant circulars and government orders. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the mere reference to the time limit in the proviso does not affect the legal position, especially considering Rule 12 and the power it provides for condonation of delay in filing claims.
2. Condonation of delay in lodging rebate claims under Section 11B:
The key issue was whether the delay in filing rebate claims beyond the stipulated time limit could be condoned. The applicant Commissioner emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limit specified in Section 11B, supported by legal provisions and precedents. The respondents argued that the delay was due to external factors, such as delayed export documents, and should be considered for condonation based on the provisions of Rule 12 and relevant case law.
3. Applicability of Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 in granting rebate upon exports:
The judgment delved into the application of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the context of granting rebates on exports. It was highlighted that Rule 12, issued under delegated powers vested in the government, governs the grant of duty rebates upon exports. The notification specifying the time limit for lodging rebate claims was considered an extension of the Central Excise Act, and the inclusion of the Section 11B time limit was deemed integral to the statute itself, rather than mere reference. The judgment distinguished relevant case law and emphasized the binding nature of statutory limitations on authorities acting under the Act.
In conclusion, the judgment ruled in favor of the applicant Commissioner, setting aside the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The decision underscored the significance of adhering to statutory time limits for lodging rebate claims and highlighted the limitations on condonation of delays, ultimately emphasizing the legal obligations and constraints governing such matters in the realm of excise law.
-
1998 (8) TMI 100
The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissed an appeal due to a delay of 6 days in filing it, as the main judgment had already been dismissed in a related case. The appeal was dismissed in view of the orders in W.A. 1868/1998, dated 11-6-1998.
-
1998 (8) TMI 99
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
2. Admissibility of statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Evidence Act regarding the confession of a co-accused.
4. The scope of Section 135 of the Customs Act.
5. The role of the trial court in evaluating evidence and the admissibility of confessions.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Quashing of the Complaint under Section 482 Cr. P.C.:
The petitioner sought to quash the complaint in Case No. 1512 of 1997 pending before the Special CJM (Economic Offences), Varanasi. The complaint was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs against five individuals, including the petitioner, for an alleged offense under Section 135 of the Customs Act related to the smuggling of Chinese silk yarn and metal scrap.
2. Admissibility of Statements under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act:
The complaint referenced statements made under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act. The court noted that these statements are admissible and not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as Customs Officers are not considered police officers. The court cited previous judgments, including the case of Rohit Agarwal v. State of U.P., which held that statements made to Customs Officers are admissible and not affected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
3. Applicability of Section 30 of the Evidence Act Regarding the Confession of a Co-Accused:
The court emphasized that while the confession of a co-accused is admissible, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Section 30 of the Evidence Act allows the court to consider such confessions, but they must be corroborated by other evidence. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Hari Charan v. State and AIR 1957 SC 381, which held that the confession of a co-accused is weak evidence and cannot be the foundation of a conviction.
4. The Scope of Section 135 of the Customs Act:
Section 135 of the Customs Act deals with the evasion of customs duty and prescribes punishment for those knowingly involved in fraudulent evasion or dealing with goods liable to confiscation. The court noted that the complaint alleged the involvement of the accused in smuggling Chinese silk yarn, which was concealed under metal scrap in the truck. The court highlighted that there was no defense claiming the silk yarn was not of foreign origin or properly imported.
5. The Role of the Trial Court in Evaluating Evidence and the Admissibility of Confessions:
The court directed the trial court to examine the materials and evidence presented by the complainant. The trial court must determine whether the prosecution of the petitioner is based solely on the confession of a co-accused or if there is additional evidence. If there is no other material evidence, the trial court should discharge the petitioner. The court emphasized that the trial court should consider the admissibility of the confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act and ensure that the prosecution is not based solely on weak evidence.
Conclusion:
The application was disposed of with directions to the trial court to evaluate the evidence and determine the admissibility of the confession of a co-accused. The trial court was instructed to decide on the objections within a reasonable time, and the personal attendance of the petitioner was not insisted upon until a decision was made. The trial court was given three months to provide its decision after hearing both the complainant and the petitioner.
-
1998 (8) TMI 98
The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court's decision that crushing dolomite lumps into chips and powder is not a manufacturing process creating a new commercial commodity. The appeal was dismissed with no costs ordered. [1998 (8) TMI 98 - SC]
-
1998 (8) TMI 97
Issues Involved:
The maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court.
Summary:
The petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution was filed against an order passed by CEGAT confirming an order-in-original by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, related to the determination of excise duty or goods' value for assessment under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents objected to the petition's maintainability, arguing that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition bypassing the statutory appeal to the Supreme Court. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court judgment but the Court clarified that the petitioner should not bypass the statutory appeal process. A similar argument was rejected in a previous case by another Division Bench of the Court.
In a Full Bench decision by the High Court of Bombay, it was held that when an appeal is provided to the Supreme Court against an order, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition challenging the same, as it would usurp the Supreme Court's powers. The Court, being bound by the previous Division Bench's view and in agreement with the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, dismissed the petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, stating that the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act was available to the petitioner.
-
1998 (8) TMI 96
The High Court at Calcutta granted a temporary license to the petitioner, extending it until the next examination results are published or December 1998, whichever is earlier. This decision is specific to this case and not a precedent for others. No costs were awarded, and all parties must receive a copy of the order.
-
1998 (8) TMI 95
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise and Salt Act.
2. Requirement of a license under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Exemption from excise duty and its effect on licensing requirements.
4. Validity of the prosecution and sentence imposed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Conviction under Section 9(1)(i) of the Central Excise and Salt Act:
The petitioners, a company and its Managing Director, were convicted for manufacturing and clearing excisable goods without a license, as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 7,500 each, with a default penalty of rigorous imprisonment for 21 months. This conviction was confirmed on appeal, leading to the current revision petition.
2. Requirement of a License under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The petitioners argued that since their goods did not exceed the value of Rs. 30 lakhs for home consumption, they were exempt from excise duty and hence did not require a license. The respondent countered that exemption from duty does not negate the requirement for a license for manufacturing excisable goods.
3. Exemption from Excise Duty and Its Effect on Licensing Requirements:
The court examined whether goods exempted from excise duty under various notifications ceased to be excisable goods, thereby negating the need for a license. The court referenced several judgments:
- Sulekh Ram and Sons v. Union of India: Held that exempted goods are not excisable, thus no license is required.
- Vishal Andhra Industries v. Union of India: Contradicted the above, stating that exemption from duty does not change the excisable nature of goods.
- Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory v. Superintendent of Central Excise: Supported the view that exemption from duty does not remove the goods from the excisable category.
- Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise: Affirmed that excisable goods remain so despite exemptions.
The court concluded that the exemption from excise duty does not eliminate the need for a license to manufacture excisable goods. The goods remain excisable, and the statutory requirement for a license under Rule 174 persists.
4. Validity of the Prosecution and Sentence Imposed:
The court found that the petitioners had admitted to manufacturing excisable goods without a license and had requested leniency based on their ignorance of the law. The court dismissed the argument that ignorance of the law could be a defense and upheld the conviction. However, considering the circumstances, the court deemed it appropriate to reduce the fine from Rs. 7,500 to Rs. 1,500 each, directing the refund of the balance amount.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the conviction but modifying the sentence to reduce the fine amount. The judgment emphasized that exemption from excise duty does not negate the requirement to obtain a license for manufacturing excisable goods, thereby upholding the statutory provisions under the Central Excise and Salt Act.
-
1998 (8) TMI 94
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the demand notice and detention order issued by the Central Excise authorities.
2. Applicability of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules to statutory transfers.
3. Priority of secured creditors over excise dues.
4. Prevalence of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 over the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Summary:
1. Legality of the demand notice and detention order issued by the Central Excise authorities:
The petitioner challenged the demand notice dated 21-2-1994 and the detention order dated 13-6-1994 issued by the Central Excise authorities, which required the petitioner to pay excise dues originally owed by M/s. Dakshin Fabrics Ltd. The court found that the Central Excise authorities had no power to attach the goods of the petitioner company since the unit had been sold to the petitioner and M/s. Dakshin Fabrics Ltd. ceased to be its owner.
2. Applicability of Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules to statutory transfers:
The court held that Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, which empowers the attachment of excisable goods in possession of a person succeeding the original owner, exceeds the scope of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. Section 11 contemplates attachment and sale of excisable goods only, whereas Rule 230 empowers the authorities to sell the plant, machinery, and other assets of the company. Therefore, Rule 230 is ultra vires of Section 11 and cannot be relied upon.
3. Priority of secured creditors over excise dues:
The court emphasized that the Industrial Development Corporation, being a secured creditor, has a preferential claim over the excise dues of the Government. The mortgage in favor of the Industrial Development Bank was prior to the date on which the excise dues were determined. The court cited several judgments, including The Bank of Bihar v. State of Bihar and Andhra Bank Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, to support the principle that secured creditors have priority over unsecured creditors, including the Government's demand for excise dues.
4. Prevalence of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 over the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The court held that the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, which is a special enactment, prevail over the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, a general enactment. Section 46B of the State Financial Corporations Act ensures that its provisions have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State of Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharashtra, which established that in the case of industrial undertakings, the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act would ordinarily prevail.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the demand notice dated 21-2-1994 and the detention order dated 13-6-1994 issued by the Central Excise authorities could not be sustained. The writ petition was allowed, and the 1st respondent was directed to return the security furnished by the petitioner.
-
1998 (8) TMI 93
Issuance of a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in demanding and collecting sales tax from them on the royalty and extraction charges paid for the supply of bamboo and hardwood to them from the forest for the period 1978-79 onwards as illegal, null and void and for a consequential relief of refund of the taxes so collected from them.
Held that:- The High Court was not right to held that the transactions in question were not exigible to tax. The refund was, however, denied on the ground that the appellants must be deemed to have passed on the liability to the consumer in the light of the case Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.[1985 (3) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] put forward by the Government Pleader. The appellants have reimbursed a tax liability which was on the Forest Department and the appellants have consumed the goods for manufacturing paperboards, etc. Therefore, the question of the appellants passing on the tax liability to the consumer, on the facts of this case, would not arise. Consequently, the appellants are entitled for refund of the tax collected from them, not for the entire period but for the period commencing three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (8) TMI 92
The High Court of Bombay modified the order of the Commissioner of Customs, directing the petitioners to deposit the full disputed duty amount for admission of the appeal. The court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 4 lakhs within six weeks as a pre-condition for admission of the appeal, finding the original order too harsh. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (8) TMI 91
Issues Involved:
1. Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation of Notification No. 286/90-Cus., dated 15-12-1990.
2. Constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Legality of reassessment of auxiliary duty from 5% to 25%.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Prospective vs. Retrospective Operation of Notification No. 286/90-Cus., dated 15-12-1990:
The primary contention by the petitioners was that the Notification No. 286/90-Cus., dated 15-12-1990, which increased the auxiliary duty from 5% to 25%, should be prospective and not retrospective. The petitioners argued that since the goods were bonded in the warehouse before the notification date, the increased duty should not apply to them. However, the court emphasized that as per Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant date for determining the rate of duty is the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse. Since the goods were removed after the notification date, the increased duty was applicable. The court concluded that the notification was prospective as it came into effect from 15-12-1990 and did not have retrospective effect.
2. Constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming it was ultra vires the Constitution. However, the court noted that no substantial arguments were presented to support this claim. The court did not find any reason to declare Section 15(1)(b) unconstitutional, emphasizing that the legislature has the authority to determine tariff rates and their applicability. The court held that the provision was valid and did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
3. Legality of Reassessment of Auxiliary Duty from 5% to 25%:
The petitioners argued that reassessing the auxiliary duty from 5% to 25% for goods already warehoused before the notification date was illegal. They contended that the goods had been assessed at 5% auxiliary duty under Section 17 of the Customs Act and should not be reassessed simply because they were still in the warehouse on the notification date. The court rejected this argument, stating that the provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Act was not final. The court reiterated that under Section 15(1)(b), the applicable duty rate is determined on the date the goods are removed from the warehouse. Since the goods were removed after the notification date, the reassessment at 25% auxiliary duty was justified.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the Notification No. 286/90-Cus., dated 15-12-1990, and the constitutionality of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court confirmed that the increased auxiliary duty of 25% was applicable to goods removed from the warehouse after the notification date, and the notification was prospective in nature. The court did not find any merit in the petitioners' arguments and ruled in favor of the respondents, justifying the reassessment and collection of the increased auxiliary duty.
-
1998 (8) TMI 90
The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a writ petition to quash an order dismissing an appeal due to non-compliance of a conditional order. The petitioner had paid almost 50% of the demanded amount, and the court directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal afresh in accordance with the law.
............
|
9911796707
