|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 187 Records
-
1978 (8) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Concession against co-accused - Seizure of smuggled goods - Smuggling of goods - Punishment-Quantum-Criteria for determination
-
1978 (8) TMI 86 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Document tampered with while in the custody of Excise Officers - Effect ... ... ... ... ..... d point relating to the statement given by the Supervisory staff, it is noted that Shri Kawal Krishan who had explained the phrase Reeling Report - Bundle 54/270 kgs. written on the chit dated 6-3-1977 as indicating that 54 bundles of woollen yarn weighing 270 kgs. were packed. He also admitted that the figures on the production chits related to the actual figures of production of finished woollen yarn recorded at the time of packing. Shri Madan Lal submitted that the figures on the slips written by him related, to the production of second shift on a given date. Shri Rajindera Singh admitted to have noted the attendance of workers in the second shift. In view of the foregoing, it is established that the figures recorded on the production slips related to the production of woollen yarn on the given dates which were not entered in the Central Excise records and duty was thereby sought to be evaded. The order-in-appeal is accordingly upheld and revision application is rejected.
-
1978 (8) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Valuation - Patent and proprietary medicines - Exclusion of sales tax ... ... ... ... ..... tend that the trade discount of 25 per cent. should include amounts paid by way of excise duty, sales tax or other taxes. Therefore, I am of opinion that there is no scope at all for any controversy regarding the manner in which the deductions are to be made in pursuance of the notification in question. In that view of the matter, the respondent s stand has to be upheld and the petitioner s contentions have to be rejected. 8. Another contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that deduction should be made towards payment of sales tax, but the respondent has failed to make any such deduction. This contention is capable of acceptance if the petitioner has actually paid sales tax. But, it is admitted by him that sales tax has not been separately charged. Such being the case the petitioner is not entitled to ask for deduction of sales tax not paid by him. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and accordingly will stand dismissed. But, not order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 84 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sugar - Excess production rebate - Average period of production ... ... ... ... ..... grant the petitioner s claim for rebate of Rs. 6,59,104 under the terms of the Notification No. 146/74-Central Excises, dated 12-10-1974. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has the remedy only under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and will not be hit by clause (3) thereof. 14. Taking all these aspects into consideration and also the fact that the Notification No. 146/74 dated, 12-10-1974 clearly upholds the calculation made by the petitioner for the purpose of getting the rebate, in that the five years period mentioned in clause (1) of the Notification includes the corresponding period of the years in which there was no production of sugar by the factory, I find that the writ prayed for has to issue. 15. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners claim for rebate of Rs. 6,59,104, which is in accordance with the terms of Notification No. 146/74-Central Excises, dated 12-10-1974. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 83 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Seizure of tobacco - Difference in number of bags ... ... ... ... ..... ty shown in EB. 3 against tobacco leaf and tobacco stalk. From the case records, it is seen that the tobacco was affected by rain water, the tobacco at the time of seizure was rebagged for weighment by the Central Excise officer. The petitioner s plea that the difference in number of bags was due to rebagging of tobacco is acceptable. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, Government of India allow the revision application.
-
1978 (8) TMI 82 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY
Valuation - Determination or assessable value - Sales to or through related persons ... ... ... ... ..... them are to be treated as the prices under Section 4(2) and that the deductions in respect of the transport charges and other charges for transport should be deducted from the price for the purpose of determination of assessable value. The appellants have also contended that the decution of sales tax and other taxes have not been allowed to them. These deductions are also permissable under the Section quoted above by them and should be allowed. As regards sales to be considered through related persons, the appellants have stated that they had hardly any sales through related persons and majority of their sales are direct on contract basis. I have no means for determining this. This may be done at the time of approval of the price list. In any case, the deductions as ordered above, would be available even if the sales are through related persons as the price at the factory gate at the time of removal, in this case is not known. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
1978 (8) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Intermediary products - Removal from the place of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... aid of power and have a proprietary interest in at least two of such manufacturing activities. Rule 49A, we are informed, has come into force with effect from the end of November, 1977. This rule 49A and old rule 96 W indicate that so far as composite textile mills are concerned, special procedure has been laid down under the rules for collection of duty leviable on yarn which is consumed by the same manufacturer in a composite mill for the purpose of manufacturing fabrics. 18. Under these circumstances, our conclusion is that removal, for the purpose of rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, is removal from the spinning department to the weaving department and not removal from the premises of the factory as a whole. This conclusion is the only conclusion which we can come to in the light of rules relating to licence under Chapter VIII of the Rules. Each of these special civil applications, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Rule discharged with costs in each matter.
-
1978 (8) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Valuation - Validity - Inclusion of Post-manufacturing expenses - Excise duty - Scope - Constitution of India
-
1978 (8) TMI 79 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
Eiectric Lighting Fittings ... ... ... ... ..... c appliances of 15 and and which are not generally used for electrical lighting fittings would fall outside the scope of item No. 61 of Central Excise Tariff. In view of the above, the order of the Assistant Collector classifying 15 and plug lops etc. as excisable under Item No. 61 is incorrect, which I set aside and accept the appeal. However, ceiling roses of 5 and have been correctly held to be excisable under Item No. 61.
-
1978 (8) TMI 78 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Prosecution - `Whoever commits' ... ... ... ... ..... part of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The purport of the aforesaid section is to impute the requisite mens rea to a person who is being prosecuted under any of the provisions of the Act and the onus is on the accused to prove that he did not have the requisite mental state. It does not mean that if a person is not legally liable to prosecution under the Act and has been implicated as an accused, Section 9C would be automatically attracted and the existence of mens rea presumed. Therefore the submission of Mr. Mukherjee cannot be accepted. 9. In the result, this application succeeds, the Rule is made absolute and the proceedings pending against the petitioners and the opposite party No. 3 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, in Case No. C-247 of 1978 is quashed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 77 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Waiver Or Reduction ... ... ... ... ..... ant made by any person or authority to buy the machinery. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any part of the cost of the machinery in terms of Indian rupees has been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority as stated in s. 43(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The advantage derived by the assessee on account of devaluation has no connection with the purchase of the machinery. They are two separate and independent economic events. Such advantage cannot, therefore, have any effect on the actual cost to the assessee of machinery which in the circumstances should include the rupee value of the British pounds paid as the price of the machinery at post-devaluation rates. We, therefore, answer the first question in I.T.R.C. No. 65/75 and the question referred to us in each of the other cases in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We decline to answer the second question in I.T.R.C. No. 65/75 as desired by the learned counsel for the assessee. No costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deposit In Bank, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... he ITO could look into it as a piece of evidence to come to the conclusion as to the assessable income. This return would, at any rate, have the same value as the account books, etc., filed or relied upon by the assessee in the course of reassessment proceedings. The existence of a voluntary return is not obliterated merely because the notice, in pursuance of which it was filed was illegal. The assessment order was not without jurisdiction. It was not liable to be annulled simply because the ITO had utilised some information which was given in the return filed in consequence of the illegal notice of August 30, 1968. We agree with the Tribunal that the assessment order was not invalid. We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1, 2 and 4, in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Question No. 3 does not, in view of the findings recorded by us, arise and is returned unanswered. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 75 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Produce ... ... ... ... ..... the hands of the ultimate consumer . The marketing functions involve exchange functions such as buying and selling, physical functions such as storage, transportation, processing and other commercial functions such as standardisation, financing, market intelligence, etc. The goods in question having been marketed and the business of the assessee being marketing of the agricultural produce of its members, the case clearly falls under s. 81(i)(c) even though it may not fall under cl. (e) thereof. The fact that the goods which are ultimately marketed had been earlier processed with the aid of power would, therefore, be of no consequence in so far as exemption granted under s. 81(i)(c) is concerned. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. The question referred to us in each of the above cases is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 one set.
-
1978 (8) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference To Valuation Officer, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ctions of ownership of commercial flats in Connaught Place Extension Area and the resolutions of a conference of 200 valuers in India held at Bombay in June, 1972. The estimated rental method adopted by respondent No. 1 was not his innovation but an accepted method. The petitioners had full opportunity to gave evidence of valuation and contest the proposed valuation by respondent No. 1. They could have produced tangible evidence of what could be the fair market value. Instead they relied only on the annual letting value. This contention was not accepted vis-a-vis self-occupied property. In our view the method adopted by respondent No. 1 and his approach is not only acceptable but in keeping with principles of evaluation. Thus, the report of respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be one based merely on conjectures and surmises. The result is that the petition fails and we hereby discharge the rule. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 73 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and before the High Court, then even if such a question is referred either by the Tribunal suo motu or pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the High Court, while disposing of the reference, is not bound and ought not to answer the same. The alternative contention of Dr. Pal that we should again reframe the question in the form in which it was originally asked for by the assessee also does not stand scrutiny. We have already indicated that the question No. 2 as originally suggested by the assessee has to be, (a) answered against the assessee on the facts found or (b) need not be answered as being a question of fact or an academic question. For the reasons as stated above, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sengupta succeeds. We decline to answer the question as referred. We also decline to reframe the said question as suggested on behalf of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... er has been discussed by the Tribunal in paras. 3 and 4 of its order, and at the end of para. 4, the Tribunal clearly found that the payment of liability, to which the employer was subject under the Gratuity Act, to the workers was an expenditure wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purpose of the business. In para. 5 of the statement of facts, the Tribunal set out the same view. Counsel for the revenue contended that the decision of the Madras High Court in Stanes Motors (South India) Ltd. v. CIT 1975 100 ITR 341 had taken a contrary view on identical facts. Assuming it had, in the light of the principles of the decisions which we have referred to and examined already, we are unable to sustain the submission of the counsel. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal.
-
1978 (8) TMI 71 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... g to be joint in respect of other properties of the family. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that s. 20 of the Act did not apply to cases of partial partition as to property, that the properties in question did not belong to the HUF on the valuation dates and further that it was not necessary to divide the estates by metes and bounds. The three questions referred to us in T.R.C. Nos. 158 to 160 of 1977 are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee-HUF. In view of the above answers, the first question which is common to T.R.C. Nos. 155 to 157 of 1977 is answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 in T.R.C. Nos. 155 to 157 of 1977 is governed by the answers given by us to the questions referred to us in CWT v. Purushotham Pai 1978 114 ITR 270 (Kar) and CWT v. Mrs. Christine Cardoza 1978 114 ITR 532 (Kar). For the reasons given in those decisions, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, M. L. Ramachandra Setty.
-
1978 (8) TMI 70 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dissolved Firm ... ... ... ... ..... rtners, it is open to him to deal with the said property in any manner he likes and if he transfers the said property in favour of any other person, s. 34(3)(b) of the Act would not be attracted, because such transfer by the erstwhile partner is not a transfer made by the firm. s. 34(3)(b) applies only when the assessee in whose favour development rebate is allowed transfers the property in question. Since we are of the view that the assessee-firm in this case has not transferred any machinery or plant in respect of which development rebate had been allowed, the question of rectifying the orders of assessment passed in its case, under s. 155(5) read with s. 34(3)(b), would not arise at all. The Tribunal was, therefore, in error in upholding the orders of rectification passed by the ITO. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee in each of the above cases. The assessee is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 (one set).
-
1978 (8) TMI 69 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Company Court, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... ial liquidator complained that after having set aside the amount, as required by s. 178(2), there is no provision for the balance left in the hands of the official liquidator after making a final adjustment of the tax liability, to be dealt with by the company court. We do not think that this position envisaged by counsel is correct. s. 555 of the Companies Act seems to us to be wide enough to deal with the situation. Read in the light of s. 511, we see no difficulty in the matter. Counsel for the liquidator raised an objection to the claim for interest based on r. 179 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. We see no substance in the objection. s. 220 of the I.T. Act clearly provides for interest in specified contingencies and the setting aside directed by s. 178 of the Act would include a claim for the same. In the result, we see no warrant to grant the prayers made by the liquidator in his report. We reject the prayers made in the report. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Reassessment Notice ... ... ... ... ..... proceedings were reopened to reassess the escaped income of the deceased, Puttu Lal, in his individual capacity. The Tribunal has not found that Puttu Lal had been assessed in his individual capacity. If the intention was to reopen the assessment of Puttu Lal, the ITO would have given the relationship of Chunni Lal to Puttu Lal in the notice. Chunni Lal was the son of Puttu Lal. In that case, the notice would have been addressed to Chunni Lal as the son of Puttu Lal, deceased. The only thing that it stated was Chunni Lal, legal heir of Puttu Lal, (deceased) . Chunni Lal s relationship to the HUF was the subject-matter of the notice. From the material on the record it is apparent that Puttu Lal had been assessed as HUF. In our opinion, the notice aforesaid did not suffer from any illegality. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. As no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
....
|
