|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 203 Records
-
1981 (2) TMI 236
... ...
... ... ..... hat the validity of sub-r. (2) of r.5 was not in question. We are constrained to observe that if the Government wanted to question the correctness of the judgment in D. Krishnamurthy’s case, the ’selection grade’ provided that if his senior in the higher finality which cannot now be upset. In that judgment, Muktadar, J., struck down sub-r. (2) of r.5 as ultra vires the Government as being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as being not in conformity with FR 22(a)(ii). The effect of the judgment of Muktadar, J., in Krishnamurthy’s case (supra) is that sub-r. (2) of r.5 is wiped out for all purposes and the re-fixation will have to be done as if sub-r. (2) of r. 5 never existed. The whole attempt of the Government in filing these appeals is to retrieve the lost ground which cannot be permitted. In the result, the appeals and the special leave petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 235
... ...
... ... ..... f the notification, the base period and the base clearances in respect of Khetri Nagar Unit ought to have been fixed under para 2(2)(b) of the notification as the said unit has started functioning only after 1-4-1973. In that view the Government hold that the base clearance for the Khetri Nagar Unit will have to be revised in accordance with para 2(2)(b) of the notification No. 198/76 and it would be added to the base clearance of Ghatsila Unit fixed in accordance with para 2(2)(c) or the aforesaid notification and clubbed together to arrive at the base clearance of the manufacturer i.e., the petitioners. 8. In view of the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 7 above the Government set aside the orders of lower authorities with directions to the original authority for redetermining the base clearance in respect of the petitioners so that the amounts of demand refund are worked out in the light of the guidelines indicated and the observation made in the foregoing paras.
-
1981 (2) TMI 234
... ...
... ... ..... em 68 of Central Excise Tariff and are enjoying the exemption provided under Notification No. 244/77. On the other hand verification done at the instance of the petitioners shows to the contrary that is that the contentions of the manufacturer in this regard is not well-founded. As regards the classification of the impugned goods under Item 27 of Central Excise Tariff, the Govt. consider that the said item covers only such “containers ordinarily intended for packaging of goods for sale” and therefore the impugned School Bags would not be covered by the said item but be appropriately covered by Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. 7. In view of the foregoing observations, the Govt. confirm the tentative view expressed in the show cause notice for review and accordingly set aside the impugned order in appeal in so far as it relates to Aluminium School Bags and restores the order of the Asstt. Collector confirming the demand of duty on the said School Bags.
-
1981 (2) TMI 233
... ...
... ... ..... ower on any day of the preceding 12 months. The wording of the notification leaves doubt that the words, ‘are working or were working’ stipulates that both the conditions must be satisfied. The words, on any day’ that have been used in the notification also show that if on even a single day of the preceding 12 months there were 49 workers the exemption would not be available and for this purpose the No. of workers employed by the petitioners unit as well as the No. of workers employed by the practitioner unit was quite material and relevant notwithstanding the change in the constitution of the firm with effect 17-l1-1975. Therefore, the petitioners were bound to pay duty on the wooden cases manufactured for the period 18-11-1975 to 17-11-1976 i.e., for the period of one year after 17-11-1975. 5. In view of the above, the Govt. see no reasons to interfere with the order in appeal which is correct in law. The revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1981 (2) TMI 232
... ...
... ... ..... came into existence only at the petitioners’ factory when the planks were put in their proper places and nailed. Government is in agreement with the findings of the lower authorities that the boxes as such came into existence in the petitioners’ factory as distinct articles and, therefore, assessable to duty under Tariff Item 68 of the CET. 3. In view of the above, the revision application is accordingly rejected.
-
1981 (2) TMI 231
... ...
... ... ..... d clarification dated 5-3-1973 was issued nor is the Board in a position in these appeal proceedings to know what were the rulings or clarifications issued by the Department after issue of this clarification, the case is remanded to the Collector on this limited issue to pass a suitable order after taking into account any further clarifications etc. issued by the Department (if any) in this context. 21. As regards Murari Lal, the Board finds that the Collector in his Order had absolved Ghasita, the driver of the truck on the ground that he had not taken any active role in the evasion of Central Excise duty. As such there was less case for taking action against the owner of the truck by depriving him of his truck under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 together with the Notification issued thereunder. 22. The appeal of Murari Lal is therefore allowed. 23. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
-
1981 (2) TMI 230
... ...
... ... ..... and the five years period of limitation does not apply. Even if Ex. P. 1 which was issued on 13-2-1978 is considered as the continuation of the earlier show cause notice viz. Ex. P. 18 which was issued on 5-8-1977, yet the claim for duty is barred applying the new Rule 10(1). Hence my finding on this issue is that the claim is barred by limitation. 63. Issue No. 5 To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? In the result there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff - (a) declaring that the show cause notice dated 13-2-1978 marked as Ex. P. 1 is illegal, void and barred by limitation; (b) granting permanent injunction re-training the first defendant from proceeding with the enquiry or taking any steps or passing any orders in pursuance of the above said show cause notice. 64. Consequent on the above findings the writ petition No. 774 of 1980 is allowed. In view of the fact the plaintiff is succeeding on point of law there will be no order as to coats.
-
1981 (2) TMI 229
... ...
... ... ..... red themselves liable to penal action under Rule 173-Q and duty is also to be demanded under Rule 9(2). The other contention of the appellant is that they should be given the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 45/73 as they had satisfied the conditions for availing of the exemption, as also Notification No. 184/76-C.E., dated 21-5-1976. This plea of the appellant definitely has a lot of force and is supported by the decision of the C.B. E. and C. in appeal as cited above and in the case of M/s. Standard Auto Industries in their appellate Order No. 184/76, dated 24-7-1976. In this view of the matter, the duty on the appellant’s product will have to be after taking into consideration the exemption given by the Notifications as available to them as mentioned above. The appeal is therefore admitted to this extent namely to re-calculate the demand after extending the exemptions available under Notification No. 45/73 and 184/76-C.E. Otherwise the appeal is rejected.
-
1981 (2) TMI 228
... ...
... ... ..... f Tamil Nadu represented by Additional Deputy Commissioner (C.T.), Madras Division, Madras v. Ceyvere Southern Inc. Kilpauk, Madras-10 (T.C. No. 1049 of 1980) 1983 52 STC 328 in regard to lobsters which were subject to similar operations before sale. By judgment dated 11th February, 1981, this Court held that notwithstanding these operations, lobsters retained their original character as the same commercial commodity. By analogy of reasoning, we must hold in this case that prawns subjected to the processes of cleaning, cutting and the like are not any the less prawns and therefore they cannot be regarded as a new kind of commercial commodity. This was the decision rendered by the Tribunal in this case on this basis, it granted exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This revision is against the Tribunal s order. Following and adopting the decision of this Court earlier cited, this revision must be dismissed as untenable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 227
... ...
... ... ..... contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before us was that in certain circumstances green and watery coconut may be classified as fresh fruit but the said coconut is never sold in Delhi as the same is a perishable item. The watery coconut which is sold in Delhi can never be classified as a fresh fruit as the same is not a perishable item. The contention, in our opinion, has merit and we do not find any ground to disagree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Financial Commissioner was right in categorising the two types of coconuts which are sold by the respondent in Delhi and the said categorisation is only artificial. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question referred in the negative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. Since there was no appearance for the respondent we make no order as to costs. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (2) TMI 226
... ...
... ... ..... lai 1982 49 STC 147 (M.C.C. No. 774 decided on 19th April, 1980) If the assessee before us had acted diligently, it could have avoided the payment of tax as part of the sale price to the selling dealer from whom it purchased the goods. As earlier pointed out by us, if the assessee paid the tax as part of the price to the selling dealer, it is itself to be blamed. The sales made by it to the consumers are taxable under the scheme of the State Act and are not hit by the bar contained in section 15 of the Central Act. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. 4.. In view of this decision, our answer to the question referred to us is that the assessee is liable to pay sales tax in respect of the declared goods which it had purchased from a registered dealer after payment of tax, without furnishing to him the declarations in the prescribed form. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1981 (2) TMI 225
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. 1982 49 STC 173 1980 UPTC 1346. In my opinion, therefore, on the basis of a single certificate in form III-C(1) filed by the assessee in respect of the aggregate amount of Rs. 1,35,345.00 exemption could not have been allowed and the view taken by the revising authority is erroneous in law. At the same time the assessee s claim could not be negatived in entirety. The assessee should be given an opportunity to indicate its choice to the transaction which it likes to be covered by this declaration and in respect of the same it will be entitled to exemption from tax under section 3-D(2) of the Act. For this purpose the case has to go back to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The revision is hence allowed and the order of the revising authority is set aside to the extent noted above and the case is remanded to the Sales Tax Tribunal for decision of the question noted above in the light of the observations made above by me. There will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 224
... ...
... ... ..... t nalidar coal was coal and should be taxed accordingly. This contention was ultimately upheld by the Board. Hence, at the instance of the department, the Board has referred the aforesaid question of law to this Court. 3.. The question as to whether nalidar coal is coal for the purpose of determining the rate of tax came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal and Kutti Farm (Misc. Civil Case No. 122 of 1977 decided on 6th October, 1980-Indore) 1981 47 STC 351. It has been held in that case that nalidar coal is coal . We see no reason to take a view different from that taken in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Punjab Coal and Kutti Farm (Misc. Civil Case No. 122 of 1977) 1981 47 STC 351. 4.. Our answer to the question referred to us, therefore, is in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs in this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1981 (2) TMI 223
... ...
... ... ..... e Commercial Tax Officer so that he could make sure whether they had or had not collected Central sales tax on the turnover originally exempted. Having regard to this statement of fact in the impugned notice itself, it cannot be said to be either a demand or a reminder on the basis of which this Court rendered the opinion in Gill and Company s case 1973 31 STC 336 (FB). In order to make the above position clear, it is necessary to state that the ratio dicidendi in Gill and Company s case 1973 31 STC 336 (FB) will be advantageous to the revenue only if it is demonstrated that an assessment was concluded against the assessee and only the amount of tax on such assessment remained unpaid when the demand or reminder was issued without any final rectification proceedings. 11.. For the above reasons, the petitioners succeed. The rule is made absolute and the impugned notices at exhibit B in all the petitions are hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 222
... ...
... ... ..... oduced in this case. However, he contended that SE wires cannot be said to be accessories and, therefore, they are liable to be taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. He also cited Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Gulmohar Industries 1980 46 STC 122 in support of his contention. We do not find that the said case has got any application to the facts of the present case. In view of the statement of Dr. B. Thapar, who is an expert in the line, and there being no rebuttal thereto, we are of the opinion that SE wires are accessories to the electric plant and equipment as they are used in winding of motors, transformers, relays and energy motors and are thus covered under the exception of item (17) of Schedule A to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as accessories. Therefore, they are liable to sales tax at the rate of 6 per cent. 4.. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the reassessment order dated 31st December, 1979 (annexure P. 1), is hereby quashed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 221
... ...
... ... ..... , J.-The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the goods which are treated as glassware and taxed as such by the Commercial Tax Officer are really glassware or whether they are merely glass sheet. The Commercial Tax Officer did not collect any evidence before coming to the conclusion that the goods in question were glassware and not glass sheet. In a similar case, i.e., Dongare and Company v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore (STA No. 1 of 1974 decided on 9th March, 1978), this Court has remanded the case to the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the said question after recording the evidence. Following the said decision, we set aside the assessment order in so far as the turnover relating to glassware is concerned and remand the case to the Commercial Tax Officer to decide the question whether the goods constituted glassware or glass sheet after recording the necessary evidence. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
1981 (2) TMI 220
... ...
... ... ..... ion to the dealers, in our opinion, was unauthorised. The result is that the petitioner would be liable to pay tax at 2 per cent under the notification dated 1st April, 1966, up to 1st April, 1978, and from 1st April, 1978, the rate of tax would be 4 per cent. The first and second notifications dated 6th July, 1979 (annexure-I), will not have the effect of increasing the rate of tax to 4 per cent for the period from 21st May, 1975, to 1st April, 1978. To that extent the petition will have to be allowed. 4.. The petition is partly allowed. We direct that the first and second notifications dated 6th July, 1979 (annexure-I), will not be given effect to so as to enhance the tax for the period from 21st May, 1975, to 1st April, 1978. The rate of tax for this period of inter-State sales of pulses would be 2 per cent in accordance with the notification dated 1st April, 1966. There will be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioners. Petition Partly allowed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 219
... ...
... ... ..... reach of the law can be said to be for the business of the assessee . The question as to whether the breach of law involves moral turpitude or only a violation of some technical provision, which according to the Tribunal is vital, is not, in our opinion, decisive of the question as to whether the amount is an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act. In the case of expenses incurred on account of the penalty levied for a breach of the law, the penalty is, as observed in Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Alexander von Glehn and Co. Ltd. 1920 2 KB 553 (CA), imposed on the assessee personally and the expenses incurred in that behalf cannot be held to be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. 10.. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this references. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1981 (2) TMI 218
... ...
... ... ..... ent case, the stands on which gas stoves are kept are designed specially for the purpose. They help in facilitating the cleaning of the gas stoves and they are sold by the respondents who deal in gas stoves. The argument of Mr. Joshi that they should not be considered as accessories because they do not improve the performance of the gas stoves cannot be accepted. They are clearly additional items required for use along with the gas stoves and are sold as such. Both according to the dictionary meaning of the term and its use in common parlance, they should be considered as accessories of gas stoves. These stands, therefore, are covered by entry 7A in Schedule E to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 8.. In the premises, the question raised before us is answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the department and against the assessees. The respondents to pay to the applicant costs of both the references fixed at Rs. 300 in one set. References answered in the negative.
-
1981 (2) TMI 217
... ...
... ... ..... rashtra. The agreement of sale has taken place in the State of Maharashtra delivery of the goods has been effected in the State of Maharashtra and the payment of price has also been made in the State of Maharashtra. For the reasons given earlier, appropriation of the goods to the contract has also taken place in the State of Maharashtra and the property in the goods has passed from the seller to the buyer in the State of Maharashtra. The sale is therefore a sale within the State of Maharashtra and the applicants are required to pay sales tax on it under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 14.. For the reasons set out above, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the department and against the applicants. 15.. The applicants to pay to the respondents the costs of the reference fixed at Rs. 300. Fees of Rs. 100 deposited by the applicants to be appropriated towards the costs of the reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
........
|
