Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 81 Records
-
1965 (11) TMI 21
Demand - In-bond movement ... ... ... ... ..... plication and the transport permit to the officer in charge of such warehouse and the officer incharge, in his turn, after taking account of the goods, complete the re-warehousing certificate on the duplicate and triplicate application and return the triplicate to the consignee for depatch to the consignor. In the instant case, the provisions contained in sub-clause 3 of Rule 156 of the rules were never complied with. The petitioner, therefore, naturally could not comply with the provisions of sub-clause 4 of Rule 156-A. That being the position, Rule 156-B which provides for a penalty of failure to present triplicate application could not be attracted in the instant case. It follows that no action against the petitioner can be taken under Rule 156-B of the Central Excise Rules, and no duty can be demanded from the petitioner. I, therefore, allow the petition with costs and direct the opposite parties not to demand any duty from the petitioner in respect of tobacco in dispute.
-
1965 (11) TMI 20
... ... ... ... ..... ves to dispose of the contention relevant to W.P. No. 287 of 1963. 8.The earlier notification of 1956 is not so elaborately worded as the later notification. It merely states that where the total output of a manufacturer of such items as indicated does not exceed 50 tons, such output shall be wholly exempt from the excise duty leviable thereon. The expression leviable thereon, attracts the application of Rule 9, for the leviability is strictly at the time of clearance from the factory. It should follow that a like interpretation as that accorded to the notification of 1960 should be given in this case also, for the computation of the duty payable can be made only on the application of the exemption provision. The exemption cannot be therefore claimed except at the time when the duty is leviable, that is to say, at the time of the clearance. It follows that the claim made in N.P. No. 286 of 1963 has also to fail. The petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1965 (11) TMI 19
Valuation (Central Excise) - Sole Selling Agents/Stockists - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... all. Part of the period beginning from December 17, 1956 to June 3, 1958, covered by the notice dated 18th July 1958, is barred by limitation under Rule 10. The entire period June 4, 1958 to May 27, 1959, covered by the notice dated July 18,1958, is barred by limitation unless saved by the bond I might have directed severance of the barred period from the period not barred and saved part of the demand, where I otherwise inclined to affirm the demands. I have, however, expressed the view that the re-assessments based on prices charged by Santlal Bansidhar were bad because these prices cannot be considered as the prices in the nearest wholesale market. I have also been unable to accept the theory of provisional assessment in respect of the bulk of the goods covered by the demand. 23.I, therefore, make the Rule absolute and quash the demands. The respondents are directed by a mandate to re-adjust the petitioners current account accordingly. I, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1965 (11) TMI 18
Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... er firm and asked its representative to distinguish the imported buttons from samples said to have been taken out from consignments of alleged Japanese origin. It is said that before the Deputy Collector, the representative of the petitioner firm failed to find out any distinction. That fact was taken into consideration by the respondent Collector, who called the petitioner for a second hearing, although nothing like that happened before the Collector. In my opinion, when one hears and another passes the penal order, on evidence collected by the other, there are chances of miscarriage of justice and the adoption of such a procedure should not be encouraged. I do not, however, make much of this because the order must be set aside, in any event, on the ground of the violation of the principles of natural justice. 12.I, therefore, make this Rule absolute, without prejudice to rights of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner firm afresh. Let a writ of certiorari issue.
-
1965 (11) TMI 17
Statute - Taxing Statute - Removal of goods - Assessment - Revision ... ... ... ... ..... December, 1961 (Annexure III), we must quash not only the orders of the Superintendent of Excise but also the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, and the order under revision passed by the Government of India (Annexure III). It does not appear that the appellate authority gave the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before disposing of the appeal. 16.For these reasons, I would quash the orders of the Superintendent of Central Excise dated the 13th March, 1961 and 17th March, 1961 (Annexures I and II), the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 30th June, 1961 (Annexure II-A) and the order of the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) and direct the Collector of Central Excise, Patna, to rehear the appeal of the petitioner after giving him a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and dispose it of according to law. There will be no order for costs. 17. Assent per S.N.P. Singh, J. . - I agree.
-
1965 (11) TMI 16
Income from the trust - exemption from income-tax under section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act
-
1965 (11) TMI 15
Firm - registration - existaence of partnership ... ... ... ... ..... 959, to March 31, 1960, and, in the light of the decision of the Punjab High Court, the firm will not be entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Quite apart from this, the application for registration mentions the date of admittance to partnership as March 1, 1959, and as it has not been established that the partnership was, as a matter of fact, created on that date, we cannot but hold that the Appellate Tribunal was right in affirming the refusal of registration by the Income-tax Officer by his order dated March 21, 1961. In the light of what is stated above, the question referred has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the department. We do so but, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-section (5) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922
-
1965 (11) TMI 14
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - held that benefit of s. 3(3) of the Agrl. IT Act, 1950, is also available in the matter of assessment of the family of which the petitioner is the head
-
1965 (11) TMI 13
Order u/s. 23A of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was not an order of assessment and the limitation prescribed in s. 34(3) cannot apply to such an order.
-
1965 (11) TMI 12
Expenditure on the maintenance of the dependants, within the intendment of allotment would fall within the scope of s. 4(ii) Expenditure Tax Act, 1957
-
1965 (11) TMI 11
Section 4(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1922 - Whether certain sale proceeds received by the assessee in respect of sales effected to British Indian buyers were received in British India or outside British India - sale proceeds must be held to have been received by the assessee in Wankaner where the cheques were delivered to the assessee
-
1965 (11) TMI 10
Where there only existed a coparcener and his wife and it was held that they constituted a HUF and the assessment was required to be made in that status
-
1965 (11) TMI 9
Inclusion of interest in the assessment was not legal and valid - amount paid as interest by the partnership firm is not liable to be included in the assessment of the assessee unless the provisions of s. 16(3) are attracted - Tribunal is not justified in holding that the properties received by an issueless male at a partition between coparceners would be his individual properties and not that of the HUF of himself and his wife
-
1965 (11) TMI 8
Net Wealth - Interest of the assessee in the corpus is neither a spes successionis nor a contingent interest dependent on the assessee being alive on March 31, 1987, but is a vested interest and, therefore, capable of valuation and should be valued as such.
-
1965 (11) TMI 7
Income-tax authorities are not authorised by s. 46(5A) to decide any bona fide dispute about the factum of the amount being available with the garnishee or not - further, ITO have jurisdiction to decide the liability of the garnishee to the assessee in case the liability itself is factually in dispute
-
1965 (11) TMI 6
Assessee threw his properties into common hotchpot of the family - held that the sitting fees received by the assessee during the accounting year are chargeable to tax in the hands of the HUF
-
1965 (11) TMI 5
Net wealth - Cash distributed amongst coparceners on last day of previous year - not includible in the total wealth of the assessee
-
1965 (11) TMI 4
Net wealth - Cash distributed amongst coparceners on last day of previous year - not includible in the total wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60
-
1965 (11) TMI 3
Tribuanl refused to entertain the additional ground of appeal - leave can be granted if the new plea does not require a further investigation into facts which are not already on record - leave can be granted does not mean that the leave must be granted when the circumstances exist - Tribunal exercised their discretion judicially in refusing to entertain the additional ground of appeal and in deciding it
-
1965 (11) TMI 2
Whether, having regard to the powers and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31 of the Income-tax Act, it is open to him to treat the sum of Rs. 30,000 as income from undisclosed sources when it was treated by the Income-tax Officer as income from speculation
|