|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 276 Records
-
1992 (7) TMI 156
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... h Court has considered the same issue pertaining to the classification of the item glass chatons. The Hon rsquo ble Court, after going through the aspect in great detail, has held that piercing of a chaton is not essentially for it to be called a bead and the articles are, therefore, glass beads entitled to the benefit of exemption notification in question. The Tribunal in the above two referred cases has applied the rulings in respect of consignment of sew-on-stones glass chatons pierced with two holes for chatons and has negated the department rsquo s contention and held that the item is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 51/61-C.E., dated 1-3-1961 and No. 124-Cus., dated 13-5-1983 and also to the benefit of Notification No. 112/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. We have no reason to differ from these rulings. Applying the ratio of these rulings, the appellants rsquo contention is accepted and the appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.
-
1992 (7) TMI 155
Principles of natural justice violated ... ... ... ... ..... y. The learned Collector is justified in coming to the conclusion that the party was raising unwanted objections to delay the proceedings. 11. In the result we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original authority with a direction to accord inspection of all the documents relied by the appellants and referred to by them in their letter dated 11-8-1990. The appellants should also be given opportunity to file the written objections and a personal hearing should be fixed and the adjudicating authority should consider all the defences raised by the party by passing a speaking order. It is made clear that the appellants shall fully cooperate in the matter and not protract the proceedings. They should avail of the opportunity of inspection on the date fixed by the department and if they fail to do so, then the department shall fix a date for personal hearing and proceed with the matter as per law as indicated above. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1992 (7) TMI 154
Appeal - Grant of early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... in terms of provisions of Section 35F. The appellants have filed the stay application which was pending before the Tribunal due to the sad demise of the learned advocate rsquo s mother. We are of the view that the Revenue authorities were not justified in recovering the amount. During the course of arguments we enquired from the learned advocate whether any show cause notice has been issued by the Revenue for the recovery of the amounts, Shri Gujral replied that there was no such show cause notice issued and the amount was just recovered. Shri Gujral stated that he does not press for the refund of the amount paid by the appellants in case his request for early hearing is acceded to. Since there is a recurring effect and the other side does not object for the out of turn hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice, we order that the matter be heard on 25-8-1992. For statistical purposes the stay application is dismissed as infructuous as the amount has already been paid.
-
1992 (7) TMI 153
Appeal - Additional evidence ... ... ... ... ..... significant difference between the weight of the imported Pig Iron determined on the basis of Draft Survey and the actual weight determined by weighment on weighbridges. Under these circumstances the finding in impugned order that the invoiced quantity of 5334 MT was also confirmed by the findings of the Port authorities on actual weighment of the goods on the Port weighbridge is contrary to the facts on record. According to the appellants the Steamer agents M/s. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd., Paradeep had also filed a supplementary manifest on 29-8-1981 showing the quantity of cargo actually landed as 5395.000 MT. Since the indirect method of Draft Survey for determination of the weight of bulk cargo loaded on a vessel, can introduce a margin of error, in our view duty was recoverable on the quantity of 5395 MT as determined on actual weighment on weighbridges prior to the clearance of the goods. 8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1992 (7) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... and vacate the stay rdquo . A simple perusal of the application shows that the application has been filed by the Revenue in a most casual manner and the amount of duty involved is Rs. 99,759/- and penalty of Rs. 1,35,000/-. There is no adverse evidence on record as to the financial position of the appellants. Filing of frivolous applications in a very casual manner is not appreciable and the precious time of the Bench is taken. We do not find any merit in the application. The Revenue rsquo s request for vacation of the stay order is rejected. While disposing of this application we have got in our mind that the appellants are paying excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4 to 5 crores annually. We also do not find any justification for grant of out of turn hearing. We also express our unhappiness towards the attitude of the Revenue in filing such frivolous applications for which the respondent/Appellant has to incur heavy expenditure as their Counsel has come all the way from Bombay.
-
1992 (7) TMI 151
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... by the learned Counsel of the appellants, and following the two decisions of the Tribunal in Oswal Agro Mills case and Tata Oil Mills case (supra), we are of the view that the classification of different varieties of toilet soaps manufactured by the appellants was correctly determined by the lower authorities under Item 15(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. All the appeals fail and are dismissed. 28. We observe that the Assistant Collector has written a detailed order after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter. We would like to express our appreciation for such careful work because rarely do we come across orders written with such care by officers of that level. 29. A question arose during the hearing whether a sentence appearing on page 8 of the copy of the order of the Assistant Collector placed before us was in existence in the order available on the record. We had, therefore, to call for the records to verify this fact which was found to be correct.
-
1992 (7) TMI 150
Set-off of duty ... ... ... ... ..... es directly into the manufacture may be the first claimant it is by no means the only claimant. Brine is the principal raw material for the manufacture of Caustic soda and before Brine is used for manufacturing Caustic soda it has to be purified by removing its impurities like Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphate and Silica. Barium Carbonate is used for purifying Brine and therefore the appellants are entitled to avail the credit of the duty paid on such Barium Carbonate under Notification 201/79 as amended by 105/82-C.E. if the other conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. 3. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that Barium Carbonate is used for purifying brine and the appellants are entitled to avail the set-off in respect of the Barium Carbonate used for purifying brine under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 105/82-C.E. if the other conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
1992 (7) TMI 149
Demand limitation ... ... ... ... ..... gwith RT 12 returns and RG 23A extracts. Such a contention is also raised in reply to the show cause notice and the Collector has also duly taken note of this. There is no rebuttal, in the order to the effect that these gate passes have been kept away by the appellants. In the circumstances, we are to hold that the Gate passes in respect of the disputed inputs were submitted with RT 12 returns is not challenged in the order. Hence, when these gate passes were available for scrutiny as also the modvat declaration, with the assessing officer, discrepancy of the description in the modvat declaration vis-a-vis the Gate pases ought to have been noticed by the assessing officer and demands should have been issued within the normal time limit. In any case, there could not be any intention to suppress any material facts required for proper assessment. Hence, on the ground of time bar itself, the appeal is required to be allowed. Accordingly, we set aside the order. Appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (7) TMI 148
Charitable Or Religious Trust, Charitable Trust, Income From Business, Income From Property, Voluntary Contributions
-
1992 (7) TMI 147
High Court Judgment, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... on of proviso to section 43B. In this context, therefore, the applicant is not correct in seeking to apply the ratio of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf and CIT v. Jayantilal Ramanlal and Co. 1982 137 ITR 257 (Bom.) which would apply only in the absence of any other conflicting decisions of any competent High Court. In view of the conflicting decisions of the High Courts, the Tribunal cleared through the conflicting decisions of the Courts and chose to rest on the consistent decisions of the Tribunal. It is needless to say that the author of the order in the case of United Engg. Works is also a party to the impugned order of the Tribunal and this impugned order being a later order to the order in the case of United Engg. Works it is more reasonable and consistent and, therefore, it is being followed. 5. The Tribunal has no power of review. The remedy lies elsewhere but not in miscellaneous application. 6. The miscellaneous application is dismissed.
-
1992 (7) TMI 146
Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Central Excise, Purchase And Sale ... ... ... ... ..... te Tribunal. It is pertinent to observe that the Judicial Member of the Appellate Tribunal expressed strong feelings and concern over the way in which the matter has been dealt with by the Additional Collector after remand was made. The Tribunal, Pune Bench, in the case of J. B. Jewellers has duly considered the explanation offered by the assessee despite shortcomings and yet held that considering the overall impact of all the facts found in that case the conclusion was in favour of accepting the assessee s explanation and, therefore, upheld the order of the CIT (A) deleting the addition in similar circumstances. We have carefully considered the record, reasons and findings given by the CIT (A) and we have no hesitation in accepting his conclusion that the assessment of Rs. 45,454 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is not justified. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and reject the ground taken by the revenue. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed
-
1992 (7) TMI 139
Failure To File Return, Reasonable Cause, Set On ... ... ... ... ..... laced by section 139 only to give a rationality with the view of CBDT. 13. I am unable to accept that the deletion of words without reasonable cause from section 271B of the Act w.e.f. 1-4-1989 had made the reasonable cause as redundant for the purpose of applying the section as suggested by the learned Departmental Representative. It would be seen that the section still retains the word made . From this it emerges that the penalty still is discretionary. Moreover, section 273B postulates that no penalty quoted in that (section 271B is one of them) can be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure. In this case, it is not disputed that the partner who used to look after the Income-tax matters had after prolonged illness in the hospital, eventually died. It squarely proves that there was reasonable cause for failure to file the returns within the stipulated time. Consequently, the audit report with it. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed
-
1992 (7) TMI 138
Special Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... ng after the property to the company. Previously the coal field allowance was termed as orderly allowances . According to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary Orderly means a non-commissioned officer who carries official message for his superior officers. The word orderly is, therefore, wide enough to include helper as envisaged in the above notification. In the 11th Meeting of the Board of Directors on 4-11-1973 approved the change in nomenclature of the words orderly allowance to coal field allowance . The Patna Bench of I. T. A. T. in I. T. A. No. 612 (Pat.) 1983 in its order dated 13-6-1984 had also accepted that there is not much difference in the allowance as termed orderly allowance or coal field allowance. In the said order the Tribunal had approved the deduction of 50 per cent from taxable income in respect of coal field allowance. I find no reason to differ. The assessee s claim, therefore, on that basis is accepted. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (sic)
-
1992 (7) TMI 135
Hotel Building, Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... d out that by implication this building has already been granted depreciation at 15 i.e., 10 normal plus 5 extra in the order of the Tribunal, cited above. On the other hand, the revenue supported the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue. We find that the building has already been recognised as a plant for depreciation purposes since it satisfies the functional test. It would, therefore, be inconsistent to deny the extra depreciation since the depreciation table allows extra depreciation on the plant. As pointed out by the assessee, the word premises cannot be equated to a building and hence the reason given by the CIT(Appeals) that the extra depreciation must be allowed only on a plant installed in a building cannot stand in the way. We, therefore, direct the ITO to grant extra depreciation on the hotel building also treating it as a plant and recompute the total income. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed
-
1992 (7) TMI 134
Entertainment Expenditure, Sales Promotion Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... . The retrospective operation of the Explanation 2 to section 37(2A) cannot make that expenditure an entertainment expenditure disregarding the main nature of that expenditure. In this view of the matter, we are convinced that the nature of the expenditure being payment to hotel and sales promotion, it will fall for disallowance under sub-section (3A) only as they are of the nature of expenditure specifically mentioned in sub-section (3B). Since there is no provision similar to sub-section (3C) which existed in 1978 giving overriding effect to sub-section (2A) over sub-section (3A), we have to accept the case of the assessee that the disallowance must be made only under sub-section (3A) as the expenditure is of the nature specified in sub-section (3B) even if some entertainment element was involved in that expenditure. We therefore, direct the I.T.O. to consider the sum of Rs. 39,363 for disallowance under section 37(3A) and re-compute the income. The appeal is partly allowed
-
1992 (7) TMI 131
Deduction In Respect, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... urnished a bank guarantee either to claim that no income had accrued to it, or to contend that a liability in prasenti had accrued. The said decision, therefore, cannot avail the department. 51. In view of the foregoing, therefore, we hold that the assessee is entitled to succeed in its claim. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee s claim. He is, of course, free to verify the arithmetical accuracy of the claim made by the assessee. Again, needless to add, as respects the assessment year 1985-86, in the view that we have taken of the matter, there will be no need to make the adjustments that the Assessing Officer had made in a sum of Rs. 4,45,286 and the quantum of the revenue deduction admissible to the assessee would be determined strictly in accordance with the liability in respect of the liquidated damages that had accrued during the previous year relevant to that assessment year. 52. In the result, both the assessee s appeals are partly allowed
-
1992 (7) TMI 128
Agricultural Land, Insurance Premia, Life Insurance, Original Assessment, Principal Value Of Estate, Property Passing On Death
-
1992 (7) TMI 127
... ...
... ... ..... that the explanation offered by the assessee was found to be bona fide. Therefore, the Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) as it was at the relevant time is not also applicable to the facts of this case. The AO has to do three things, namely, (i) to establish that the explanation was false (ii) to prove that the assessee failed to substantiate the explanation and (iii) that the explanation was mala fide. After going through the order of the AO as well as of the CIT(A), the aforesaid facts have not been proved. The Department also failed to establish that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) and Tribunal were the concealed income of the assessee. Having taken into account the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Department failed to discharge the onus which was shifted on it after explanation of the assessee. In view of these facts levy of penalty is not justified. Accordingly, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is knocked off. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (7) TMI 126
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee had shown the gross profit of Rs. 37,662. After adjusting the sales tax, the Assessing Officer found that the G.P. shown, in fact, was Rs. 25,018 only. He found that in earlier year, the AAC has confirmed the rate of 12.5 in cycle and 17.5 in cycle parts. He, therefore, estimated the sales at Rs. 2,35,000 and applied the rate of 15 . When the matter was taken to the CIT(A) the CIT(A) reduced the G.P. from 15 to 12.5 . 7. We have heard the Departmental representative and the assessee s counsel. We are of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Officer has to be restored in this regard. The assessee failed to give up the break-up of cycles and cycle parts. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the G.P. rate of 17.5 was taken in the past year, the average rate of 15 applied by the Assessing Officer was justified. We direct that the order of the Assessing Officer will be restored in this regard. 8. In the result, the Departmental appeal is allowed in part.
-
1992 (7) TMI 125
... ...
... ... ..... he asst. yr. 1984-85, namely, that the CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the amount of capital subsidy from cost of assets for working out the capital employed for the purposes of deduction under s. 80J. 28. This ground of objection is equally without merit. In computation of capital employed written down value of the assets is taken. In view of the CIT vs. Bhandari Capacitors, the amount of capital subsidy should not be deducted from the written down value of the assets. We, therefore, find no merit in this ground of objection too. The orders of the CIT(A) for both the years are sustained. ITA No. 316/Ind/90 (Asst. yr. 1985-86) 29. It is not pressed by the assessee. 30. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee, except ITA Nos. 409/Ind/87 and 323/Ind/88 and all the appeals of the Department and Cross Objection Nos. 11 and 12/Ind/88 are dismissed. ITA Nos. 409/Ind/87 and 323/Ind/88 and C.O. Nos. 9 and 10/Ind/88 and C.O. No. 27/Ind/91 are allowed.
............
|
