|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 145 Records
-
1978 (11) TMI 85 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... d in entertaining appeal of the assessee. 7. As regards the merits of the case, we find that this is a simple case of an omission through inadvertence by the learned Counsel for the assessee to submit form No. 12 before the ITO. This has been stated in an affidavit dt. 10th Sep., 1975 made by the learned Counsel for the assessee. This has been admitted in evidence by the AAC and there is nothing to controvert this. The mere mistake of the advocate of the assessee could not be held as a justification for not condoning the delay in furnishing the declaration. There has not been even a suggestion from the Revenue that the non-furnishing of the declaration by the result learned Counsel for the assessee was the of a fraudulent endeavour. We, therefore, do not find any justification for not accepting the explanation as sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. Thus on both the counts, the order of the AAC is justified. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 84 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... was also noted by the ITO. Mere fact that the assessee showed the income by filing her return does not mean that the income should be assessed in her hands when she categorically stated that the income belonged to the trust. In these circumstances, I think it would be most appropriate and just to set aside the assessments in order that the ITO will consider the whole question with regard to the trust and then find out whether the income has to be assessed in the assessee s hands. It is needless to point out that the ITO will find out whether the trust is genuine and acted upon and if so, who are the trustees to be assessed. If the ITO finds that the property has been settled by Gadadhar Dey by way of gift to his children and/or to his wife the ITO will have to see whether s. 64 will apply. I, therefore, set aside the assessments and direct the ITO to pass fresh assessment orders in the light of my observations and in accordance with law. 6. The appeals be treated as allowed.
-
1978 (11) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Search and seizure - Writ petition ... ... ... ... ..... pondents could be challenged under the law. The petitioners would have ample opportunity to prove before the appropriate authorities under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act that their possession of the seized goods and the documents are not in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act. Further the Court has no jurisdiction to sit on appeal on the acts and decisions of the respondents when there were materials before the respondents for issue of the said authorisation under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act as the adequacy and sufficiency of the materials cannot be enquired into by the Court. Further the investigation as to the nature of the goods seized and the right of possession of the petitioners are entirely within the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities under the Customs Act and the Gold Control Act. Therefore, the Writ petition must be dismissed and the rule to be discharged and all the interim orders to be vacated.
-
1978 (11) TMI 82 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... as not examined all the points raised by the petitioners in the appeal and in these circumstances there has been a denial of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order-in-appeal is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Appellate Collector for decision in accordance with the law.
-
1978 (11) TMI 81 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Licence vis-a-vis exemption from duty ... ... ... ... ..... question may be fully exempt from the payment of duty. In these circumstances, manufacture of goods without taking a central excise licence is proved in the instant case and for doing so the petitioners rendered themselves liable to penal action. The penalty imposed on them for manufacturing goods without licence is therefore correct in law. 3. In so far as the demand for duty is concerned, Government, however, observe that the same has to be examined on the basis of effective rates of duty provided in exemption notification if any. In the revision application it has been stated that the goods manufactured by the petitioners were exempted. Government however, observe that there is no definite finding on this question by the authorities below. In these circumstances the demand for duty should be re-examined by the Assistant Collector taking into consideration the effective rates of duty read with exemption notification, if any. The revision application is otherwise rejected.
-
1978 (11) TMI 80 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Ethylene Gas ... ... ... ... ..... tral Excise, Surat - 1978 E.L.T. (J 350), wherein the Supreme Court had observed as follows The entire matter is governed wholly by the language of the notification. If the tax-payer is within the plain terms of the exemption, it cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exempting authority. If such intention can be gathered from the construction of the words of the notification by necessary implication therefrom the matter is different but that is not the case here. 13. Having regard to the above observations of the Supreme Court, Government of India hold that it would not be legally correct to deny the exemption provided by Notification No. 276/67, dated 21-12-1967 to Ethylene Gas used by the petitioner in manufacture of chemicals even though the Ethylene Gas does not get directly wholly absorbed in the chemicals so manufactured and in the circumstances accepting petitioners submissions, Government of India allow the Revision Application.
-
1978 (11) TMI 79 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Confiscation of Vehicle - Validity ... ... ... ... ..... at there was no evidence to show that there was any collusion or connivance on the part of the owner. On the basis of this finding, the appellate authority has reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 250/ Government, however observe that once it is established that the owner or his agent did not connive with the defaulting firm, the vehicle in question no longer remains liable for confiscation. In the circumstances, it appears that the Appellate Collector has erred in his conclusion on the basis of the finding of fact recorded by himself. The revision application is accordingly allowed. Consequently relief may be granted to the petitioners accordingly.
-
1978 (11) TMI 78 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Epsom sale - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r was amended by reclassifying the same under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the petitioners commenced manufacture of this product on the strength of a licence issued to them for manufacture of P or P Medicines, would not affect this position. Classification and re-classification of a product under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, do not call for involvement of the Central Board of Excise and Customs or the Central Government, as is the legal position in this respect. 4. In this view, the Order-in-Appeal being passed on facts of the case and thus correct in law. Govt. of India do not find any reason for interfering with same. 5. In the circumstances, the Revision Application, is rejected.
-
1978 (11) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Glass or glassware - Dutiability of Cell-O-Therm - Appellate and Revisionary orders - Statute - Ambiguity - Classification
-
1978 (11) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Appeal received late due to wrong address - Counter affidavit - Criteria for ... ... ... ... ..... nsel ought to have applied its mind. 9. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, and the difficult questions raised relating to jurisdiction, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to be heard by the appellate authority. Even assuming that the petitioner s appeal was ultimately received by the appellate authority outside the period of limitation. In view of the fact that, if the appeal had not been wrongly addressed, it would have in all probability reached the appellate authority well within time. I am of the view that Ext. P3 appeal should be taken back on file by the appellate authority and disposed of on merits. 10. I set aside Ext. P4 order of the 2nd respondent and direct him to consider Ext. P3 appeal and dispose of the same on merits. I should like to make it clear that none of my observations shall be taken to have touched the merits of the case in any manner whatever. The original petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1978 (11) TMI 75 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Refrigeration and air conditioning plant - Dutiability of parts ... ... ... ... ..... ule specifically refers to and restricts the applicability of duty to goods which are assembled units and which are generally offered for sale, the concept of sale is necessarily brought in. As already seen, sub-entry (3) takes its colour from sub-entries (1) and (2) because of the specific directive of the heading by using the words parts thereof , we are hence unable to agree with the authorities below that the tariff advice in relation to the refrigeration plants which are assembled at site was not relevant for determining the issue with regard to the parts which are assembled at site. In our opinion, these parts, though they may be called cooling coils and condensers, were not liable to excise duty within the meaning of Item 29-A (3) of the Tariff Schedule. 10. In the result, the petitions succeed and are allowed. The order passed by the authorities below are quashed and the demand notice issued to the petitioners are set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to costs.
-
1978 (11) TMI 74 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BRANCH)
Vegetable oil - 'Place of removal'- Connotation of - Dutiability - Component parts - Dutiability - Admissibility - Review of one's own order - Competency
-
1978 (11) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Short levy - Time bar for recovery of demands - Rough rolled zinc flat forms - `Other legal proceedings'
-
1978 (11) TMI 72 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ct of the matter is that the Government of India in itself has held that for claiming exemption under Notification No. 119/75, it is not essential that the nomenclature or trade description of the goods before subjecting them to the processing and after-processing, should be the same. This decision of the Government of India has been communicated to the trade by Bombay Collectorate Trade Notice No 218/75, dated 5th December, 1975 see 1978 E.L.T. (A 178) . Taking up of different view, at different stages create uncertainty, cause harassment to the trade and is a sort of seed for corruption for subordinate and field staff. There we do not want to highlight the evils of making different interpretations on the same points of law as the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case has already condemned the excise department on this very issue. But it is regrettable that the authorities do not learn any lesson from the court s strictures due to their rigidity and obsolescence of mind.
-
1978 (11) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Glass and Glassware - Scope and connotation of - Interpretation - Heading of tariff entry - Writ Jurisdiction
-
1978 (11) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Tariff Value for Sulphuric Acid and Chlorin - illegal - Criteria for fixation - Valuation - Criteria for determination
-
1978 (11) TMI 69 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Valuation - Board’s directives - Legality - Excess production rebate ... ... ... ... ..... udes post-manufacturing cost and the profit arising from post-manufacturing operation, namely, selling profit . The value of the goods for the purpose of excise must take into account only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit and it must not be loaded with post-manufacturing cost or profit arising from post-manufacturing operation. 6. For the above reasons the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated February 20, 1978 is quashed. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa will determine afresh the refund claims of the petitioner for Rs. 11,51,380.77 for the period from 8th of February, 1977 to 31st of March, 1977 in accordance with the observations made in C.W. Petition No. 411 of 1977 and those contained in this short judgment. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Goa will determine the application of the petitioner expeditiously, in any case, within two months. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (11) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Prosecution - Economic Offences - Ineffectiveness - Criminal Revision ... ... ... ... ..... nation need a different treatment, because the members of this neo-criminal tribe are repeatedly escalating. The following remarks given by a Constitutional Bench consisting of 5 Judges of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchadra Dange and others AIR 1974 S.C. 228 aptly apply to the facts of this case - There is injustice to the community-the invisible but immense victim of the crime in the court s misplaced sympathy for the culprit. Before parting with the case I will like to caution that nothing which may have to be said in support of my order while answering the question raised is meant and should be understood to prejudice in the least the case of either party at the trial. 8. The revision is devoid of merits and it is summarily dismissed. The learned Magistrate has not merely taken an erroneous view of law but has committed a gross mistake in utter disregard of the decisions of this Court as well as that of Hon ble the Supreme Court of India.
-
1978 (11) TMI 67 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Water Coils ... ... ... ... ..... r passing water 3. In view of Govt. s order referred to by counsel during personal hearing, Govt. observe that water coils are essentially different from cooling coils and the latter alone were dutiable under Notificatian No. 80/62 because in view of the inbuilt cooling arrangement these could be termed as cooling coils. In the circumstances, if the goods cleared by the petitioners during the relevant period were not cooling coils but only water coils, no duty would be payable on the same. The question whether during the relevant period what the petitioners cleared as water coils were only water coils according to the above observation of the Government is essentially one of fact and at this stage it is not possible clearly to decide it. This question therefore is left to be determined by the Assistant Collector now on the basis of material which the petitioners may supply to him. The Asstt. Collector should decide the case keeping in view the above observations of the Govt.
-
1978 (11) TMI 66 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Records - Non-maintenance of - Goods removed without payment of duty - Presumption regarding ... ... ... ... ..... earance of yarn without payment of duty, Government observe that the demand for duty issued to the petitioners is not maintainable in law. The same is, therefore, set aside. 2. In so far as penalty is concerned, the same is not maintainable under Rule 173J. Government, however, observe that in not writing Form IV properly and upto date and also bringing the goods not meant for the manufacture of yarn in their factory, the petitioners have violated the provisions of Rule 226. The penalty of Rs. 250/- imposed on them under Rule 173Q is, therefore, converted to penalty under Rule 226 and is maintained. 3. In the circumstances the revision application is allowed in part. Consequential relief may accordingly be granted to the petitioners.
|
