|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 244 Records
-
1985 (1) TMI 64 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prosecution - Detention ... ... ... ... ..... e grounds are in English. Mr. Dwivedi, Joint Secretary to the Government of India has expressed his mind in English. It is evident from a reading of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that Mr. Dwivedi did not know Gujrati and in fact the documents in Gujrati had to be translated to him in English by one Mr. Bakshi, Deputy Secretary. If the Gujrati version is taken to be the correct version, it obviously does not reflect what Mr. Dwivedi wanted to convey. We leave this point at this stage having made the above observations and comment no more. 6. In view of our decision regarding the satisfaction having been vitiated, we strike down the impugned order of detention, dated 14th August, 1984 and direct that the detenu Izharul Huq Abdul Hamid Shaikh alias Izu Shaikh be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under any other valid order of any Court or an Authority. 7. A formal order may be given dasti to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
-
1985 (1) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Valuation - Glass and glassware - Writ jurisdiction - Show Cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... nch of Government, examining a similar question arising under the Act as amended by Act No. 22 of 1973, has taken a similar view. We are of the view that this view expressed by Government in Gujarat Fertilisers Co. Ltd. s case correctly represents the legal position. 18. On the above discussion, it follows that the impugned show cause notice is liable to be quashed. With this, it follows that any application to be made by the petitioner for refund of excise duty, if any, paid has necessarily to be examined and decided by the authority in accordance with law. 19. In the light of our above discussion, we make the following orders and directions (i) We dismiss this writ petition in so far as it challenges the validity of Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act. (ii) We quash the impugned show cause notice issued by the Assistant Collector (Exhibit-B). 20. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Yarn is fully manufactured and excisable commercial commodity before sizing ... ... ... ... ..... hered on bobbins, cones, reels, etc. If it is to be sold, it could be sold in that stage and if it is to be used for weaving, it is wound on beams and then sized. These averments remain uncontroverted because there is no affidavit in reply, although the petition was heard three years after it was filed. These averments, in our view, clearly show that the commodity in question became complete yarn before it was sized and that sizing was done after it was wound on the beams. This would clearly suggest that sizing was not done in the spinning department but in the weaving department. This view is supported by the decision of the Delhi High Court in 1981 Excise Law Times 887. We are also told that in similar matters, in S.C.A. Nos. 471 of 1977, 1823 of 1977 and 1122 of 1981, the Supreme Court, by its order dated 6th September 1984, rejected the Special Leave Petitions filed by Union of India against the judgments of the Gujarat High Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (1) TMI 61 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
COFEPOSA - Detention for smuggling activities ... ... ... ... ..... v. K. Shivraj and Anr 1979 S.C. 447, which is binding on all of us. 4. Mr. Mehta s another argument was that the writ petitions were withdrawn and that obliterated those writ petitions from the scene. It is difficult to subscribe to this argument. The writ petitions were withdrawn, but along with their withdrawal, the assertions could not have been withdrawn. They reminded an important document and copies of those writ petitions were with the sponsoring authorities, as is evident from order passed by the High Court. We fail to see why such an important document was kept back. 5. In the above grounds, we have to quash the orders at Annexure A in each of these petitions. 6. The result is that the petitions are allowed by quashing the orders at Annexure A in each of these petitions, being dated 29-6-1984 and the result would be that the consequential direction will be issued these detenus shall be released forthwith. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Exemption - Criterion for exemption to be satisfied ... ... ... ... ..... d of only by those who satisfy the conditions which have been laid down in the Notification Refer-Union of India v. Messrs Parameswaram Match Works - 1978 E.L.T. (J 436) (S.C.) AIR 1974 S.C. 2349 . The notification in this case is very specific to the effect that the concession is for original equipment parts available to the manufacturers of motor vehicles falling under item No. 34-A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The present excise duty exemption is claimed for the replacement of the equipment during the warranty period. This, in my opinion, will not come under the category of the original equipment parts as contemplated in the Notification No. 101/71 referred above. Correctly the authorities below have negatived the contention of the petitioners herein and- I am in complete agreement with such finding and reasoning given by the authorities below. 5. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 59 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Biris removed without payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... he order of adjudication which imposes also a fine of Rs. 50/- on him. The subsequent increase in the rates of excise duty cannot have any application to goods already removed, the excise duty in respect of which had been decided and fixed by the process of adjudication under Section 33 of the Act. The demand under Ext. p 10 for recovery of Rs. 8,091.12 cannot therefore be sustained. The petitioner s liability is only to pay the excise duty and penalty adjudged on 28-2-1977 under Section 33 of the Act towards which, it is submitted that, a sum of Rs. 2.000/- is already paid. It is open to the Department to issue a fresh demand for the balance, if any, due to make up the excise duty and penalty adjudged on 28-2-1977. Subject to the right of the Department to issue a fresh demand for balance the amount as aforesaid, the demand under Ext. P 10 is quashed and tile Original Petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Issue carbon copy of this judgment on usual terms.
-
1985 (1) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Customs valuation ... ... ... ... ..... pliers showing the value of the packing material and (iii) Petitions in which the invoices show the total value of the goods imported but the importers have furnished to the Customs authorities a certificate from the local agents of the foreign suppliers showing the value of the packaging material. However, in the view we have taken, irrespective of the category in which each of these writ petitions falls, under the exemption notification the value of the packages cannot be deducted from the value of the goods. No direction restraining the respondents from including the value of the packages in assessing the value of the goods for the purpose of levying Customs duty or additional duty thereon can be issued in any of these writ petitions. The petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. These petitions, therefore, fail and are accordingly dismissed. Rule issued in each of these writ petitions is discharged. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Demand notice for recovery of excise duty - `Short-levied' - Connotation of ... ... ... ... ..... ord or would have to be read in the context as meaning and . 16. Since the limitation contemplated by Rule 10 and now Section 11A of the Act was provided for reopening an assessment and not for recovery of the assessed dues without reopening the assessment to which Section 11 applies which prescribes no limitation, it is obvious that the interpretation sought to be placed by counsel for the petitioners on the aforesaid or could never have been intended. 17. In the instant cases, since the earlier assessments are not sought to be re-opened but the already assessed amounts alone are sought to be recovered from the petitioners it is not possible to accept the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the recovery proceedings and the citation issued in this behalf are barred by time. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion we find no merit in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 56 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Man-made fibres - Liability to duty ... ... ... ... ..... . Therefore, an exemption notification was issued which provided that if base yarn had been subjected to duty then that amount of duty will be deducted from the duty which would be levied on the processer. This is a normal way in which double taxation is avoided. It is to be borne in mind that the duty which is levied is on the item and not on the person. The duty is levied on textured yarn. It cannot be that the duty on textured yarn should be dissimilar. The only way in which similar duty could be levied is in the manner in which it has been done by Entry 18. It was, therefore correct to subject the textured yarn to the same rate of duty irrespective of the fact as to whether it was manufactured by the manufacturer of the base yarn or it was a processer who was merely processing the base yarn and texturising the same. 7. No other contention has been raised before us. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 1,000/- one set.
-
1985 (1) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Short levy - Manufacture - Change in form ... ... ... ... ..... c resin) and about 15 W/W of water. It is excisable under item 15-A of the Current Central Excise Tariff. That report shows that the end product still continues to be a synthetic resin and therefore it is excisable under item 15-A. Even after the process of mixture or dilution employed by the appellants, the product continues to be a synthetic resin, then the process adopted by the appellants has not resulted in any new and commercially different product. Therefore, the Chemical Examiner s Report itself indicates that the process employed is such as not to result in a new and independent product. Therefore we have to hold that the process employed by the appellants is not a manufacture so as to attract a charge under S. 3. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary to go into the contentions urged by the appellants as regards the scope of the amended provision in Tariff Item 15-A. The appeal is allowed and the impugned demand is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 54 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHD.
Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... e manufacture of a shell. The shell is not sold separately in the market. 10. In a recent case the Bombay High Court in Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Union of India - 1981 E.L.T. 676 held that merely because the worn out spinnerettes were melted or repaired, it cannot be said that new product was manufactured, which was liable to payment of duty. It could not be said that the spinnerettes had lost their identity because of melting or repairing abroad and had become a different product. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the reconditioning of old worn out Sugar Mill Roller does not amount to manufacture as envisaged in the Act and the Schedule and the question posed in the very beginning of the writ petition is answered in the negative. I further hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay excise duty on reconditioning of old worn out Sugar Mill Rollers. I quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-7, P-9, P-15 and P-20). There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 53 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Company, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... ved (p. 422) He urged that it was quite apparent from, the order of the Incometax Officer that none of the considerations pointed out by this court had been considered. We agree with him that the Income-tax Officer did not consider the question like a prudent businessman. But, as we have already said, the assessee did not raise this point either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal. If this point had been raised, the facts relating to the considerations mentioned in the observations of Subba Rao J. would have been brought on the record. We feel that it is now too late to permit him to raise this point... (underlining is ours) I Having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal and the circumstances revealed in the case, we do not think that the Tribunal has taken any erroneous view of the law. In the result, we answer the questions in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 52 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... the circumstances of the case. An application for relief cannot be kept in cold storage as had happened in the present case. In this view, I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the ITO-respondent to consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner under s. 154 of the Act with all such expedition as is possible in the circumstances of the case and, in any event, within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Let this order be communicated to the respondent within seven days from this day.
-
1985 (1) TMI 51 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns 1982 133 ITR 515 (Ker) FB and Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. CIT 1982 134 ITR 718 (All), where it has been consistently held that in the case of a mercantile system of accounts, even though the tax liability may have been quantified subsequently, the same having been challenged in an appeal, the same has to be taken into consideration in the relevant assessment year in which the tax liability arose. He also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this court in M.C.C. No. 178 of 1983 decided on November 28, 1984, CIT v. Ratlam Straw Board Pat. Ltd. 1985 152 ITR 425, where similar question arose. In the result, the question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Our answer to the question, therefore, is that On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in allowing the sum of Rs. 3,258 being sales tax for the assessment year 1974-75. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HUF, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ble to members of other associations of persons. Thus, looking from the point of view of taxation, there exists good reason for placing the two categories of HUFs, as have been placed in different categories and their being subjected to tax at different rates, specially with a view to neutralize the advantage, which, till then was being derived by members of such HUF cannot, on the basis of the decisions cited above, be said to contravene art. 14 of the Constitution. These principles equally apply on all fours to the amendments made to the Act by the very Finance Act. We are in respectful agreement with these views. For these reasons also, the challenge of the petitioner to the Act is liable to be rejected. As the only contention urged for the petitioner fails, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss this writ petition and discharge, the rule issued in the case. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 49 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Per Annum ... ... ... ... ..... he undertaking begins to manufacture or to produce articles. Once the quantum of capital employed is determined in respect of an industrial undertaking which fulfils the conditions prescribed under s. 80J, the benefit of exemption has to be extended to it irrespective of the fact whether the industrial undertaking has worked only for while during the relevant previous year. We may add that Mr. S. Chakraborty, the learned advocate for the Revenue, has drawn our attention to the fact that the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular being Circular No. 378 dated March 3, 1984, accepting the meaning given to the phrase per annum by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Simpson and Co. 1980 122 ITR 283 and the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Mysore Petro-Chemical Ltd. 1984 145 ITR 416. In the premises, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (1) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... the earlier years and still there is balance left over on that count. That apart, there is unabsorbed depreciation which is carried forward for the subsequent years. It is only after wiping out such (balance) unabsorbed business loss and also the unabsorbed depreciation, the question of any set off of the unabsorbed development rebate can or will arise. No such contingency arose for consideration in this case. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no error or other infirmity in Ext. P-1 or Ext. P-3 orders as contended by the petitioner s counsel. The original petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.L.Viswanatha Iyer, orally prayed for the grant of a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court of India. We are not satisfied that the case involves any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Leave rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 47 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... April 19, 1984. Of course, it is open to the respondent to impound them again in accordance with the proviso to s. 131(3) or to retain them in accordance with the procedure indicated by us. The other question that remains to be considered is the request of the petitioner for the copy of the deposition of the A.C.T.O. and the certified copies of the Daily Collection Reports (DCRs) seized from the distributors by the entertainment tax authorities. We are of the view that on the facts of this case revealed from the counter-affidavit of the respondent, the interests of justice and fair play would be amply satisfied if we direct the respondent to furnish the certified copy of the deposition of the A.C.T.O. recorded by the respondent and also furnish the substance of the D.C.Rs. seized from the distributors by the entertainment tax authorities. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... rt and profits in respect of import entitlements, the assessee was not entitled to deduction of tax as contemplated under s. 2(5)(a)(i) of the Finance Act, 1965. In this case also, two views are conceivable as regards the interpretation of the expression sale proceeds or turn over . One view is that whatever is the actual consideration received by the seller from the buyer, it would be sale proceeds. The other view is that all amounts received by the seller and referable to export sale, whether cash subsidy or excise duty drawback, would form part of the sale proceeds. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of s. 154 of the Act. In the result, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Leave is given to file correct order of the AAC which shall be kept on record. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (1) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... death of Fatehlal who died on July 14, 1969, and after that, a new firm by means of the partnership deed dated July 24, 1969, came into existence which was to be operative from July 15, 1969. The new firm constituted by means of the partnership deed dated July 24, 1969, is a successor firm and two assessments will have to be made under s. 188 of the Act. On the facts and in, the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right and justified in holding that the case was covered by the provisions of s. 187(1) read with s. 187(2) of the Act and, therefore, only one assessment should have been framed on the firm for the entire accounting period corresponding to the assessment year 1970-71. The aforesaid question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with s. 260(1) of the Act.
....
|
