|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 136 Records
-
1985 (6) TMI 131 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... taken by the revisional authority was right. 8. emsp Having regard to the above decision of the Supreme Court the view taken by the Collector and the Board that the import in question was invalid is erroneous in as much as the Public Notice 53/78, dated 28.7.78 has no retrospective effect and that cannot govern the licence issued before the date of Public Notice. 9. emsp In this view of the matter, the order passed by the authorities below is required to be set aside. But then authorities below did not investigate as to whether the goods imported did or did not comply with the terms of the licence. Therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Collector of Customs for consideration afresh. 10. emsp In the result this appeal is allowed, the orders of confiscation as well as the levy of fine in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector of Customs, Bombay for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order.
-
1985 (6) TMI 130 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Proforma credit ... ... ... ... ..... of sub-rule (3)(i)(b) that the manufacturer shall produce documents mentioned therein is for satisfying the proper officer that the material received was duty paid material. 22. emsp On careful consideration of all the aspects I hold that in order to claim proforma credit. It is not essential that the manufacturer who availed proforma credit should be shown as the consignee in G.P. 1 or there should be an endorsement on the reverse of G.P. 1 or there should be a subsidiary gate pass in his name. 23. emsp As the respondent had satisfactorily established that the inputs utilised in the finished excisable products were duty paid inputs and that no other manufacturer had availed of proforma credit in respect of those inputs and since they had substantially complied with the procedural retirement laid down in Rule 56A and Trade Notice, there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). 24. emsp IN the result this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1985 (6) TMI 129 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Gold - Confiscation and Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... ready determined by him. Inasmuch as the appellants, in spite of being regular licensed dealers, have failed to maintain the statutory records, including lsquo Repair Register rsquo , as enjoined by Rule 12, they were also liable to pay a penalty under Section 74 of the Act. In view of the fact that they have had to pay redemption fine of Rs. 75.000/-, a penalty of Rs. 7,000/-, as proposed by learned Brother, Shri M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (Judicial), would adequately meet ends of justice. 49. emsp I answer the Reference accordingly and the file be now sent to the Learned Brothers who constituted the Bench, for issuance of orders of the Bench, in accordance with the requisite procedure. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL In terms of the above order dated 4-6-1985, the appeal is disposed of as under. The order of confiscation as well as the levy of penalty are sustained but quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs. 7,000/- from Rs. 10,000/-. The order of the Collector is otherwise upheld.
-
1985 (6) TMI 116 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Refund for short-shipment ... ... ... ... ..... een noticed in the consignee rsquo s premises. There was no contemporaneous documents to establish the shortshipment. The invoice originally filed did not contain details of the goods shipped. The appellants did not chose to produce packing specification. In the absence of the particulars of the goods shipped the contention that there was a short shipment cannot be accepted. Much reliance also cannot be placed on the subsequent supply by the suppliers of the alleged shortshipped goods. Strictly, the appellants rsquo claim would not fall either under Section 13 or under Section 23, or even under Section 22 of the Act, which sections enable the appellants to claim refund. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence or convincing circumstances it is hazardous to rely on the evidence such as subsequent supply of the alleged shortshipped goods by the suppliers for the purpose of ordering refund of duty. 6. In the above view of the matter, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.
-
1985 (6) TMI 115 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Import licence not governed by policy changes ... ... ... ... ..... n by the revisional authority was right. 8. emsp Having regard to the above decision of the Supreme Court the view taken by the Collector and the Board that the import in question was invalid is erroneous inasmuch as the Public Notice 53/78, dated 28-7-1978 has no retrospective effect and that cannot govern the licence issued before the date of Public Notice. 9. emsp In this view of the matter, the order passed by the authorities below is required to be set aside. But then the authorities below did not investigate as to whether the goods imported did or did not comply with the terms of the licence. Therefore, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Collector of Customs for consideration afresh. 10. emsp In the result this appeal is allowed, the orders of confiscation as well as the levy of fine in lieu of confiscation are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector of Customs, Bombay for consideration afresh in the light of the observations contained in this order.
-
1985 (6) TMI 114 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d up for purposes of further manufacture with similar inputs which were free of duty under Notification No. 118/75 should not deny the benefit of exemption under Notification No.201/1979. So long as the required statutory conditions are observed and fulfilled in respect of such bought out duty paid inputs before they are taken out for further manufacture by being mixed up with similar duty free inputs, the final benefit under Notification No. 201/1979 should not be denied. The department may have to take necessary steps to allocate and assign the quantity in the final manufactured product that would have resulted from the utilisation of the bought out duty-paid inputs. That would be a matter of procedural arrangement between the department and the assessee for ascertainment of the ratio. 15. emsp In the result we hold that the order of the Appellate Collector does not require any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the Review Show Cause Notice is discharged.
-
1985 (6) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund not effected by validating statute ... ... ... ... ..... against them - (1) emsp 1981 E.L.T. 867 (Bombay) - Shrinivas Cotton Mills v. U.O.I. (2) emsp 1983 E.L.T. 239 (Delhi) - J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills and Another v. U.O.I. and Others. (3) emsp 1983 E.L.T. 326 (Gujarat) - Arvind Mills Limited v. U.O.I. and Others. In the Delhi High Court judgment cited at (2) above, the question was considered in the context of the amended Rules 9 and 49 and Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982. The High Court, in paragraph 30 of their judgment, held that sizing was a preparatory process in the course of weaving of fabrics. All the three High Courts held that in the case of a mill spinning yarn and then removing it for weaving of fabrics in an integrated process, the duty should be charged on the yarn before it was removed for sizing, i.e., on the unsized weight of the yarn. 4. emsp Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, allow this appeal and direct that the consequential refund of Rs.14,328/- shall be granted to the appellants.
-
1985 (6) TMI 112 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Time limit - Show Cause Notice to allege fraud, collusion or suppression of facts ... ... ... ... ..... sionally against a bond and the goods are not physically available for confiscation, we fail to see how the Collector could have Confiscated the goods and given an option to the appellants to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation to redeem the goods. The proper course would have been to enforce the bond for breach of its provisions either by forfeiting the bond amount or by enforcing the terms of the bond in a Court of law. We, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation. 25. emsp In the result, the demand for duty by the Collector is confirmed. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only. The order of the Collector confiscating a quantity of chromic acid and imposing a fine in lieu of confiscation is set aside. But for these modifications, the Collector rsquo s order is upheld. Whatever relief flows from this order must be granted to the appellants within 4 months from the date of communication of this order.
-
1985 (6) TMI 111 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference Application - Gold ornaments and articles, including gold coins, undeclared by deceased though quantity exceeding specified limit
-
1985 (6) TMI 102 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Armature windings ... ... ... ... ..... s and after inspection of the same we are convinced that the product manufactured by the appellants required further processing of grinding/turning the commutator and varnishing. This processing was not done by the appellants before clearance of the goods from their factory. Admittedly, the process of grinding or turning and also varnishing was done by M/s. Advanced Apparatus and Jayshree Supply Agency to whom the appellants supplied their product. We are also convinced that without this processing, armature windings manufactured by the appellants cannot function as armature for use in D.C. Motors. As the goods manufactured by the appellants are not complete armature, fit for use as such, the same cannot be treated as a finished part of electric motor. Accordingly, we arc of the opinion that these armature windings are not liable to Central Excise duty under Item 30 (4) of the Central Excise Tariff. As a result, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1985 (6) TMI 101 - CEGAT, MADRAS
credit granted for excess production ... ... ... ... ..... s being given is an administrative concession. To quote, ldquo What has been given is merely an accommodation or a credit from out of the Consolidated Fund. rdquo Revenue as such cannot go on shifting its stand, though I note that the present reference is from the Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, whereas the earlier decision which was followed in this case, related to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. Revenue has to be treated as one for the purpose of such questions involving the basic issues and of all-India import. In the light of the stand already taken by the Revenue in the case of lsquo Hiranyakshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit rsquo it would not be open to it to take just the opposite view in the present case. As I have already observed, the question whether the procedure was an extra legal arrangement or one governed by the Act, would largely be a question of fact. In these circumstances, the application for reference is rejected.
-
1985 (6) TMI 96 - ITAT PUNE
Method Of Accounting ... ... ... ... ..... s connection, it is to be noted that the Commissioner has not shut the doors for furnishing proper proof before the ITO. Paragraph 6 of the Commissioner s order is quite clear. We agree with Commissioner that as a method of accounting the assessee s new system is not immune from scrutiny by the ITO for determining whether the conditions of section 145 are applicable. It is also to be noted here that this is the third innovation in accounting. The second one adopted for the assessment year 1976-77 was rejected by the revenue and this rejection appears to have been accepted by the assessee as seen from the fact that for this year (assessment year 1979-80) the assessee has claimed and obtained a deduction of Rs. 1,84,100 on the basis of the pre-1976-77 assessment method. We, therefore, see no way of reversing the decision of the Commissioner. It is not for us to say how the alleged hardship referred to in paragraph 9 is to be overcome. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 93 - ITAT PUNE
Company, Assessable As, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ditions for exemption under sections 11-13. We were informed that there are no prohibited accumulation or investments. This aspect is left to the ITO for consideration at the time of implementing this order. 23. The other grounds of appeal deal with computation of income. We see no way of making departure from our decision for earlier years against the assessee. Shri Inamdar, however, contended that certain expenses though allowable have not been allowed either under property or under business or other sources. Shri Inamdar, however, could not pinpoint the items. The departmental representative too did not have any ready reconciliation between the returned and assessed incomes except depreciation on property income from which is assessable under section 22 of the Act. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the issue here. Nothing in this order, however, need be taken in the way of the assessee from approaching the ITO for rectification. 24. The appeals are allowed as above.
-
1985 (6) TMI 90 - ITAT MADRAS-D
... ...
... ... ..... es which may be incurred by the firm on behalf of their wards. It is also observed that the capital account represents only the minors rsquo fund. The profits having earned towards his share should go to swell the funds of the minors whereas if losses are incurred again it goes to the same account to dwindle the funds of the minors. In that way the minor was made to bear losses also which is prohibited under law. As clearly stated by the Supreme Court we are not concerned with the liability of the benamidar towards his ward. It is outside the purview of partnership deed. Our limited scope of enquiry must be who is the partner of the firm. Because we found that the guardian is the partner of the firm and he had got relevant authority to become a partner on behalf of his ward and as the partnerships are found to be genuine and as there was no defect in the partnership deeds we hold that the assessees are entitled to registration. 14. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 88 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Business Disallowance, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... in this appeal as allowability thereunder would arise only for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. 8. In the instant case no approved gratuity fund has been created by the assessee. Further no gratuity has become payable during this year. Thus, the conditions mentioned in clause (b)(i) of section 40A(7) are not satisfied. Thus, no deduction is permissible under section 40A(7)(a). 9. The decisions relied on by the assessee in CIT v. Mettur Spg. Mills 1983 140 ITR 991 (Mad.), Andhra Prabha (P.) Ltd. s case and CIT v. Chamarchi Tea, Textile and Engg. Industries Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 281 (Cal.) are distinguishable as they relate to the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73 for which section 40A(7) is not applicable. 10. Since the conditions laid down in section 40A(7) have not been complied with the deduction of Rs. 10,115 claimed cannot be allowed, we reverse the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the addition of Rs. 10,115. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Reference To IAC, Time Limit For Completion ... ... ... ... ..... itted under clause (ii) of Explanation 1 to section 153. One need hardly refer to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S.G. Mehta, ITO 1963 48 ITR 154 at page 171 in support of the proposition that where the Act prescribes a time limit within which an order is to be passed, the department cannot pass such an order on the expiry of that period. The Supreme Court in CIT v. National Taj Traders 1980 121 ITR 535, where it was held that the time limit applies to suo motu orders passed by the Commissioner under section 263 and not to orders made by him pursuant to a direction or order passed by the Tribunal, also supports the view indirectly I am taking in this case. In this view of the matter, I eventually agree with the Judicial Member that the assessment order in this case has got to be annulled. 13. In the result, the Third Member s order will now go to the Division Bench for deciding the appeal according to the majority view.
-
1985 (6) TMI 84 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... Addl. CIT vs. Dargapandarinath Tulijayya and Co. (1977) 107 ITR 850 (AP)(FB) . 14. Thus on going through the facts we hold that he assessee has disclosed the sale of timber in the statement enclosed with the return of income filed. The facts also warrant us to come to the conclusion that the assessee could have entertained a bona fide belief that the sale proceeds of silver oaks trees with roots are capital in nature no liable to capital gain-tax. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any particulars with regard to the sale of timber so as to attract the provisions of s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee has not concealed any particulars of his income of furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as contemplated under s. 271 (1) (c). In that view, of the matter, we cancel the penalty levied under s. 271 (1) (c) and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 81 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Capital Gains, Market Value, Route Permits, Transport Business ... ... ... ... ..... , goodwill is something which is easy to describe but very difficult to define. The Supreme Court has made an attempt to define it in its decision in the case of S.C. Cambatta and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CEPT 1961 41 ITR 500 in the following words . . . the goodwill of a business depends upon a variety of circumstances or a combination of them. The location, the service, the standing of the business, the honesty of those who run it, and the lack of competition and many other factors go individually or together to make up the goodwill, though locality always plays a considerable part. Shift the locality, and the goodwill may be lost. At the same time, locality is not everything. The power to attract custom depends on one or more of the other factors as well. . . . Therefore, even route permits in the case of a transport business can and will form part of the goodwill. 8. The Third Member s order will now go to the Division Bench for deciding the appeal according to the majority view.
-
1985 (6) TMI 78 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessment, Additions To Income ... ... ... ... ..... one any positive evidence which could lead us to conclude that the action of the ITO was justified at all. Even the assessee dealt vide order dated 30-3-1984 made under section 16(iii) of the Act by the same officer goes further to establish that additions were not at all warranted. We are, therefore, of the view that the action of the department was wholly unwarranted and no addition could be made on the assessee at all. We, therefore, delete the entire addition of Rs. 24.15 lakhs. 7. In the assessee s appeal ground No. 10 is in respect of Commissioner (Appeals) not deciding the issue in respect of other grounds taken by the assessee before him. In view of the fact that we have held that Rs. 24.15 lakhs cannot be assessed as income of the assessee, we direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the matters relating to ground No. 10 taken before us and dispose of the matter. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
1985 (6) TMI 77 - ITAT JAIPUR
Appeal To AAC ... ... ... ... ..... s bound to file objections to the draft assessment order within the time prescribed by section 144B and had failed to do so. If now its objections are considered in appeal, it would be indirectly extending the limitation for these objections which the assessee has already lost. To our mind there is difference between the two proceedings. Even if the assessee had filed objections, and they had been rejected by the IAC, the assessee was entitled to file an appeal against the ultimate assessed income. In other words, the right of appeal is entirely different from the right to take objections under section 144B and in any case when there is a direct decision of the Tribunal on the subject, we are not inclined to take a different view. Accordingly, we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter to his file for fresh decision on the merits of the case filed before him. 3. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed as such.
|
