|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 240 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... The post importation certificate given by the supplier indicates that there is no specific relationship between the Supplier and the Importer but does not specify the nature of discount given that too it was odd percentage of 9.8, except stating that 9.8 rebate granted on quoted prices refers to normal price conditions. There is nothing on record also to indicate that similar goods have been imported by other parties in India at the relevant time with similar percentage of discount. However, taking into consideration that there is no special relationship between the foreign supplier and the party and noting particularly the bulk purchases of the appellants, we are of the view that normal trade discount at 5 is permissible. 7. In the view, we have taken, we direct the concerned Assistant Collector to re-determine the value by allowing 5 discount as against 9.8 for the purpose of assessment and refund the duty amount accordingly. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (11) TMI 177 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... iven inspection of relevant record to enable him to make their submissions in accordance with law. We, therefore, remand this case as well to the Collector having jurisdiction with the direction that he should supply within one month from the receipt of this order copies of all the documents relied upon in the show cause notice to the appellants and the appellants shall furnish a reply to the show cause notice within one month and thereafter the Collector shall issue notices of hearing to the appellants and pass an order within 4 months. We further order that the Collector shall readjudicate the matter within a total period of 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. The Collector shall observe the Principles of Natural Justice and also grant personal hearing to the appellants. In case the appellants do not choose to file a reply to the show cause notice or appear for personal hearing the Collector shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
-
1992 (11) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Strictures against Collector for non-implementation of appellate order ... ... ... ... ..... tay. I am also informed that the appeals before the Supreme Court have been preferred in March 1991 and almost a year is going to be over in two months since the filing of the appeals. As such, I do not see any justification for the respondents to retain the paltry amounts with them. Considering the fact that the petitioners are all small manufacturers, a direction will issue to the respondents to refund the amount in each case to the respective petitioners on or before 29-2-1992. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. rdquo In the interest of justice, we give one more opportunity to the Collector to implement the Order passed by the Tribunal and in the event of non-implementation of the Order, he should personally appear before the Bench on 2nd February, 1993. Let a copy of this Order be supplied to both sides. Chairman of Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, Principal Collector of Customs, Bombay, Judicial Member of the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 175 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... view of the notification and to not extend the benefit to the parts of the engines referred to in Heading 8406. The Court observed ldquo to accept the contention made on behalf of the respondent that as heading under 8406 does not mention the parts, the notification is inapplicable to the parts, will be to amend the notification, which Court will not do rdquo . Therefore, the goods have been assessed to duty under Heading 98.06 on the basis that these are parts of casting machines under Chapter 84, such parts are specifically exempted from auxiliary duty by Notification No. 112/87. In view of this and in view of the structure of Heading 9806 which classified the goods generally with reference to the various Chapters therein, there is a lot of force in the appellants rsquo contention that the imported goods are eligible for exemption from auxiliary duty of customs under Notification No. 112/87. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 174 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Flame-proof/Explosion-proof Enclosures ... ... ... ... ..... ith the view taken by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay as per impugned order in Appeal No. E/2769/90 that the functions of these items are not for switching or protecting electrical circuit or for making connections to or in electrical circuits. Accordingly, these items are not classifiable under the Heading 85.36. When once it is ruled out under Heading 85.36, next question arises whether the item in question is classifiable under Heading 85.37 or under 85.43. On going through the tariff entries and having regard to the nature and function of the items in question, as discussed above, we are of the view that it is more appropriately classifiable under 85.43 since individual function of the item in question is not specified and Entry 85.43 refers to an electrical apparatus having individual functions not specified or included elsewhere. Accordingly, we hold that these items are correctly classifiable under 85.43. 10. Thus, both these appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (11) TMI 173 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... Infusion set rsquo to the benefit of S. No. 34 of ITC Policy reading as lsquo Intravenous Cannulae and tubing (for long term use) rsquo in view of the scope of the words lsquo long term use rsquo explained by Calcutta High Court in the context of Notification 208/81 in the case of Trio Marketing, mentioned supra. We are, therefore, of the view that the goods are not covered by OGL, as held by the adjudicating authority. Since the adjudicating authority has already given the benefit of OGL to Scalp Vein Set (Butterfly Needle) under S. No. 10, List 2, Appendix 6 and the department has not come in appeal, this benefit cannot be denied to the appellants. However, lower authorities rsquo finding that lsquo Infusion Set rsquo simpliciter is not covered by the said serial number or by S. No. 34 of List 2, Appendix 6, is correct, as discussed above. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1992 (11) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... component rsquo and should have really mentioned lsquo parts rsquo . rdquo The position, however, is different in the present Notification 156/86. The exemption has been extended to lsquo component parts of machine tools for working metals rsquo falling under Tariff Heading 84.66, as mentioned at S. No. 4 of the Table to the said notification. Component parts are, therefore, mentioned in isolation and not in conjunction with the machine tools. In the scheme of notification, therefore, we are of the view that there is no difference between component parts and spare parts. It is admitted by the lower authorities that these are parts of machine tools. Therefore, the benefit of Notification 156/86 should be extended to those parts which we have held above as falling under Tariff Heading 84.66. Those parts of machine tools which, however, do not fall under Tariff Heading 84.66 would not be entitled to the benefit of this notification. 13. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (11) TMI 171 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption to SSI units ... ... ... ... ..... d in extenso by the learned sister in her order. 5.4 There appears to be internal evidence in the Notification 175/86 that the Central Government issuing the notification intended to apply para 7 to those branded goods in respect of which manufacturer affixes the brand name and not in respect of the branded goods on which the manufacturer has not affixed the brand name. One clue is obtained from proviso to para 3 of the said notification which enables exclusion from computation of aggregate value of clearances, the clearances of any excisable goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name. 6. It is, therefore, apparent that the notification has deliberately used the words referring to the act of the manufacturer with reference to which the exemption is available or not. This is in tune with the general scheme of the notification as well because the exemption has been given to a certain quantity of goods cleared by a manufacturer for home consumption.
-
1992 (11) TMI 170 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Redemption Fine ... ... ... ... ..... steners shall not exceed 3 of the value of the licence and that will be subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000.00. In that view of the matter, the import of the goods worth Rs. 95,751.00 are not in accordance with law and they are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. But it was contended by the learned Consultant, Shri Lahiri that the redemption fine is on the higher side. Even in the impugned order, the learned Collector of Customs stated as follows - ldquo ...Moreover, since the festival season is over, it will not fetch good price.... rdquo It is thus clear that the learned Collector himself has admitted that the goods will not fetch good price. The goods are worth Rs. 95,751.00. We are of opinion that the redemption fine of Rs. 70,000.00 is on the higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the redemption fine to a sum of Rs. 30,000.00 (Rupees thirty thousand) only. But for this modification the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 169 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Modvat Credit - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... had not filed the required declaration. If the declaration is not there, it is known to the department and they (viz. the manufacturers) have to face the consequences of such a default. But the said consequences cannot be the extended period upto five years which are attracted only in cases of taking of credit on account of wilful misstatement/ collusion or suppression of facts on the part of the manufacturer or assessee. The further finding that they did not obtain any acknowledgement while submitting the RT 12 returns does not prove anything against them. It is not that they had not filed the RT 12 return. If any acknowledgement from the department was required, it was for the department to issue the same. It is not a default on the part of the appellants. This finding is of no consequence. 6. For the reasons discussed, the adjudication order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed. 7. The operative part of the order was announced in the open Court at the end of the hearing.
-
1992 (11) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... tion of the car transferred from Bangalore to Delhi was undeniably subsequent to its importation into the country and its registration in India at Bangalore. Therefore, he could not have had any reason to believe that it was liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.1, therefore, agree with the finding of the Member (Judicial) and hold that the third appellant is not liable to penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.1, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on him. Sd/- (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Dated 22nd October, 1992 45. In view of the majority decision the penalty imposed upon the 3rd appellant, Shri Inder Pal Singh (Appeal No. C/1901 /91-NRB) is set aside. In respect of Shri Shally Thapar (Appellant No. 1-C/1945/91-NRB) and Shri Haren P. Choksey (Appellant No. 2 C/1885/91-NRB) the appeals are disposed of in terms of Para 37 (Page 36) of the order. Sd/-(N.K. Bajpai)Technical Member Sd/-(Jyoti Balasundaram)Judicial Member 2-11-1992
-
1992 (11) TMI 167 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Modvat Credit ... ... ... ... ..... l therefore not be entitled to the Modvat credit in view of the exclusion clause to Rule 57A. rdquo 3. After hearing both sides, I am unable to subscribe to the view held by the Collector (Appeals) because of the following reasons Phosphoric Acid is an input which goes in the product mix and added to the cane juice for clarification. Hence it cannot be identified with apparatus for treatment of the juice. It is an input needed for clarification of the cane juice. Even going by the recognised technical books for the manufacture of sugar (Handbook of Cane Sugar Engineering by E. Hugot), Phosphoric Acid added to the juice precipitates part of the colloids and the colouring matter, which contains and this Phosphoric Acid will be added before liming. Hence it is evident that it is added as an input to the product mix and cannot be equated with an equipment or an apparatus. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside with consequential relief.
-
1992 (11) TMI 166 - ITAT PUNE
Assessing Officer, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ent allowance was admissible on machinery used in mining operations for producing manganese ore. It is relevant to point out that the Tribunal had duly taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Idandas relied upon by the revenue in the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chrestien Mica Industries Ltd. v. State of Bihar 1961 12 STC 150 and the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. M. R. Gopal 1965 58 ITR 598 wherein the process employed in converting boulders into small stones with the aid of machinery was held to be manufacturing process. What is applicable to the production of Mica and production of manganese ore is also applicable to the production of iron ore. Following respectfully the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Minerals (P.) Ltd. we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) on this issue and reject the ground taken by the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1992 (11) TMI 165 - ITAT PUNE
Additions To Income, Assessing Officer, Business Income, Capital Asset ... ... ... ... ..... r of the revenue and the other in favour of the assessee. The Calcutta High Court itself has pointed out that if two views are possible in the construction of fiscal statutes, the view which is favourable to the assessee must be accepted while construing a taxing statute. Thus Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 88 ITR 192 also held likewise. Accordingly, we prefer to adopt and follow the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in preference to the Madras High Court. It is pertinent to point out that the Tribunal, D Bench Bombay in the case of P.J. Anthony duly considered the decisions of the Tribunal in Virendra Madhavlal s case and H.S. Salian s case but yet took contrary decision which accords with the decision of the Calcutta High Court. Following respectfully the aforesaid decisions and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and reject the ground taken by the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 160 - ITAT PATNA
Assessing Officer, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... can be made. If proof in support of the claim is not furnished by an assessee, then for the lack of the proof, no disallowance or adjustment can be made. The only option open to the ITO, in such a case, is that he can require the assessee to furnish particulars in which case, he will have to issue a notice under section 143(2). We respectfully agree with this reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Emphasis supplied Therefore, whether the assessee had incurred further expenditure to earn the bonus/commission apart from expenditure incurred to earn first year commission, is a matter of investigation, production of documents and evidences or I may say further explanation. The Assessing Officer cannot disallow the claim without issuing notice under section 143(2) calling for them. I, therefore, uphold the argument of the ld. counsel that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the order under section 143(1)(a) disallowing the claim. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (11) TMI 158 - ITAT MADRAS-D
Immovable Property, Movable Property, Tax Proceedings, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... legal title to the property with the power to dispose of the same. Hence it has no marketable value. 5. For the purpose of wealth-tax, the property owned by an assessee has to be valued taking the market value as on the valuation date. As this property which is covered by the road has no marketable value on the relevant valuation date, the same should be treated as nil. the CWT (Appeals) reduced the value of the property on the ground that it is only an emcumbrance and hence a deduction of 20 per cent was granted. But as there is no marketable value as found by us, the same should be treated as nil. In view of the above finding, we set aside the order of the CWT (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to value the land covered by the road as Nil. 6. The next ground relates to the valuation of cars. The learned counsel for the assessee represented that he is not pressing the same. Hence, this ground is rejected as not pressed. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1992 (11) TMI 156 - ITAT MADRAS-C
Deemed Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... nder was not part of the, converted property which was the subject-matter of partition deed dated 31-10-1977 and (iii) the value of the right to maintenance cannot be included in the net wealth of the assessee under section 4(1A)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the disposal of the appeals in accordance with the opinion of the majority. Per Sri. T.N.C. Rangarajan, Vice-President--In these appeals on a difference of opinion between the Members, the matter was referred to the Third Member under section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Third Member has agreed with the view of the learned Judicial Member. Hence, conformably with the decision of the majority of the Members who have heard the case, the addition made under section 4(1A)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act is deleted from the net wealth of the assessee for all the assessment years under consideration. The W.T.O. is directed to recompute the net wealth. The appeals are allowed.
-
1992 (11) TMI 154 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Failure To Pay Advance Tax, False Estimate ... ... ... ... ..... ated income. Therefore, the assessee cannot be punished for not showing what was not required to be shown by that section. In a case of proceedings for imposition of penalty we are constrained to go by the wording of the statute and we cannot take into account any lacuna by which a person, who in fact had income, was not required by the literal provisions of the statute to file a statement of advance tax. In the circumstances, the failure of the assessee to file a statement of advance tax which could show only a loss according to the provisions of section 209 can only be regarded as a venial default not requiring the imposition of penalty. It may be that the assessee has been penalised under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of his income but it is not possible on the wording of section 209A read with section 209 to impose penalty for not filing an estimate of advance tax in respect of the same concealed income. We, therefore, cancel the penalty imposed. The appeal is allowed
-
1992 (11) TMI 151 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessing Officer, Being Heard, Collection And Recovery, Natural Justice ... ... ... ... ..... venue were simply to reject every application of assessees forcing them to file applications before the Tribunal, it is only a ploy to shift the burden to the Tribunal and later claim that stay is granted by the Tribunal in a large number of cases. There is no reason why we should be dealing with an application for stay in a case like the present one, where the ITO or the Tax Recovery Officer could well have considered the proposal of the assessee to pay the outstanding amounts in instalments. 9. In the circumstances, we consider this application to be premature and we leave it to the assessee to approach the CIT once again and we expect the CIT to pass a speaking order on the lines given by the Madras High Court in T. Gurunathan v. Addl. Collector of Customs 1989 175 ITR 429. We have no doubt that the assessee will not be treated as an assessee in default until the assessee s application before the Commissioner is properly disposed of. This petition is dismissed as premature
-
1992 (11) TMI 149 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e, therefore, do not find any error in the tax authorities below adopting the net profit rate of 12.5 before depreciation. 3. So far as allowability of deductions under s. 80HH in the asst. yr. 1985-86 and ss. 80HH and 80-I in the asst. yr. 1986-87 are concerned, in our judgment, the assessee is entitled to the same. The assessee was engaged in the business of construction of overhead water tanks, which require construction of piles. The construction of piles itself is a process of manufacture. In this connection, reference may be made to the order of the Tribunal dt. 22nd Jan., 1992 in ITA No. 846/Ind/1985 in the case of ITO vs. M/s P.D. Agarwal and Ors. and so also the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pressure Piling Company (1980) 126 ITR 333 (Bom). The Assessing Officer is, therefore, directed to allow deduction under s. 80HH in asst. yr. 1985-86, under s. 80HH and 80-I in the asst. yr. 1986- 87. 4. In the result the appeals are partly allowed.
........
|
