|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 217 Records
-
1993 (11) TMI 123 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Set-off of duty - Raw material ... ... ... ... ..... ential for the chemical processes culminating in the emergence of the desired end-product, that having regard to its importance in and indispensability for the process, it could be said that its very consumption or burning up is its quality and value as raw-material. The Supreme Court also repelled the argument that for something to qualify itself as raw-material it must necessarily and in all cases go into and be found in the end-product. In the present case, the Collector (Appeals) has quoted in his order the opinion of Department rsquo s Dy. Chief Chemist saying with reference to the use of the solvents used in diluting the printing ink used for giving designs to the PVC films/sheets should be considered as input. Therefore, in the light of the above, the solvents in the present case would be eligible for exemption as inputs under Notification 201/79 in the manufacture of printed PVC sheets/films as rightly held by Collector (Appeals). The appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
-
1993 (11) TMI 122 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... em 15A ldquo as an artificial resin obtained by esterificatien of natural resin or a resinic acid rdquo under old Central Excise Tariff as it stood during relevant period. 59. However, in view of the changing stand of the Department and the fact that the Board itself had excluded estergum from Tariff Bern 15A by its ruling No. 30/1965, the appellants could not be blamed for classifying it under tariff Item 68 and the Assistant Collector could not be faulted with in approving the classification as such. For the same reason, it cannot be said that they had mis-classified the item with intent to evade duty. 60. In the new tariff, the product was classifiable as rosin derivative under 38.06. The quantity produced on esterification with glycerine falling under 3806.10 which is specific for estergum and the quantity produced by reaction with any other polyhydric alcohol(s) was classifiable under 3806.50. 61. The appeal is, therefore, accepted as already announced in the open court.
-
1993 (11) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Aluminium ingots ... ... ... ... ..... gots had not been put to any other process or transformed into any other form before it is used for the manufacture of aluminium castings and hence it qualified for exemption. I see lot of force in this argument and I accept the same, as also because, Aluminium is never available in 100 purity and the explanation to tariff itself has clarified that if the Aluminium content predominates from other metal contents then it continues to be aluminium. There is no dispute in this case on this point. As the ingots are in crude form, they are also virgin and hence they are entitled to the benefit of the notification. The ld. Counsel has relied on certain rulings to draw an analogy. I do not see these rulings having any direct bearing on the notification. In any case I do not see any merit in this appeal and hence I direct the appeal to be dismissed. Sd/- emsp emsp (S.D. Mohile) Member (T) Dated 25-11-1993 Sd/- emsp emsp (P.K. Kapoor) Member (T) Sd/- emsp emsp (S.L. Peeran) Member (J)
-
1993 (11) TMI 120 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Reference Application ... ... ... ... ..... the Supreme Court in the case of Eastend Paper Industries -1989 (43) E.L.T. 201 (SC) and also Ballarpur Industries Ltd. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 804 (SC) particularly the citation of the Ballarpur Industries Ltd. was also referred to in my order. Moreover, even on actual position, the Collector does not seem to have appreciated the correct position that the nitorgen gas is purged into the reactor vessel not for its maintenance or for running the reactor vessel. It is purged into the reactor vessel only for creating an inert atmosphere so as to ensure for proper chemical reaction to take place. Hence it cannot be construed to be an input required for up keeping or maintenance of the machinery. It is an essential input required for proper chemical reaction to produce the final product. The Applications styled as Reference Applications are therefore dismissed. The Cross Objection is only in the nature of rebuttal of the Reference Applications and is therefore disposed of accordingly.
-
1993 (11) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... 2.04 the material composed mainly of polyethylene and colouring matter other than that based on Titanium Dioxide was classifiable under Heading 3204.17 as held by the Collector (Appeals). 9. It is seen that on test a part of the imported goods was found to consist of synthetic resin, wax, inorganic pigment (titanium dioxide) and fillers. Evidently these goods are a preparation based on titanium dioxide. The imported titanium dioxide based preparation is admittedly meant for use as an ingredient in the manufacture of Crayons which are also colouring preparations used for imparting colour to paper. Hence, in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 32 of the HSN they would be appropriately classifiable under Heading 32.06. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the Collector rsquo s order holding the imported titanium dioxide based colouring preparation as classifiable under Heading 3206.10. 10. In view of the above discussion, we confirm the order appealed against and reject the appeal.
-
1993 (11) TMI 118 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Classes of buyers ... ... ... ... ..... ether the firebricks and mortar both excisable under Item No. 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, fall under the same class of goods for the purposes of Rule 173L(3)(iii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal had held that the firebricks and mortar fall in the same class of goods. The context and the purpose of interpretation of the expression ldquo classes of buyers rdquo are entirely different. 45. Thus, taking all the relevant considerations into account, we consider in the circumstances of this case, on the basis of the facts on record, that the appellant rsquo s Delhi distributors and their outstation distributors are two different classes of buyers, for the purposes of proviso (i) to Section 4(l)(a) of the Act, and accordingly each price charged from these different classes of buyers is the normal price in relation to each of them. 46. As a result, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1993 (11) TMI 117 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Refund on returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... gate passes. Regarding the third ground, the appellant-Collector has stated that the goods were rejected and the same have not been returned for re-processing purposes. It is to be seen that when the goods are rejected by a buyer the same are sent back to the supplier with the only rejection memo. and it is for the assessee to decide whether the same can be re-processed or not. In this case the plea taken by the respondent is that the goods were re-made in the respondent rsquo s factory and that there is no dispute in this regard. In that view of the matter it has to be held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of re-processing as set out under Rule 173L. The learned JDR has mentioned that the goods after re-making were not sent back to the same buyer. I observe there is no requirement under Rule 173L that the goods should be sent back to the same buyer. In view of the above, I hold there is no force in the pleas of the Revenue and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1993 (11) TMI 116 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Baggage - Proper declaration of baggage made ... ... ... ... ..... ched the concerned authority with proper declaration of baggage and claim for TR Concessions and has not made any misdeclaration or non-declaration in relation to those items. On the contrary, he has claimed benefit of TR Rules only for 15 out of 19 items. 13. In that case, therefore, it was required of the officers to examine his case under T.R. Rules, and pass appropriate orders. If they felt the case of under-valuation, it was open for them to pass appropriate orders considering various provisions of the said Rules and allied provisions. Booking of offence case, and invoking the provisions of Section 111 (d) and consequently of Section 112 of the Act, do not appear justified. 14. In the result, the order passed does not appear justified, and requires to be set aside, with a direction that the appellant rsquo s claim for clearance of goods under T.R. Rules, be examined and clearance thereof be given according to law. 15. Ordered accordingly. Consequential reliefs to follow.
-
1993 (11) TMI 115 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import Policy ... ... ... ... ..... put in Appendix 6. He had no explanation to offer in this regard except to say that the framers of the policy had included the same for no apparent reason. We observe that the second-hand computer/computer based system is not permitted for import. What has been imported is a Phototype setting system and it has the computer incorporated in it. This system has to be considered as a computer/computer based system and is, therefore, covered by the prohibition as set out in Appendix 6 of the Policy for import under Open General Licence (OGL). We, therefore, find no force in the plea of the appellants in this regard also. 6. emsp No specific plea has been taken that the redemption fine levied is excessive nor any circumstances have been brought to our notice which would warrant reduction in the quantum of fine. We, therefore, hold that the goods have been correctly confiscated under law and redemption fine fixed cannot be considered as excessive. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 114 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Modvat credit ... ... ... ... ..... cally for being placed in the furnace to give an indication of the degree of fire. In that view of the matter it has to be held that it is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. We, therefore, hold that on merits the findings of the learned lower authorities are not maintainable and the plea of the appellant has to be allowed. The appeal is thus allowed in the above terms. rdquo In view of the above we hold that so far as Molybdenum plates are concerned, the same are not eligible for the benefit of the MODVAT credit. In regard to Tungsten nozzles we hold these help in giving shape to the end-product and have to be held to be an item in the nature of a die or a tool used for processing the materials. Since tools, etc. are ineligible for the benefit of the MODVAT credit in terms of the definition of lsquo input rsquo under Rule 57A, we hold that the benefit of MODVAT credit will not be available in respect of the same. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
-
1993 (11) TMI 113 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... fact that ldquo assessable value rdquo was higher than the ldquo invoice value rdquo . Requiring the former and the latter to be the same as something compelled by Cl. (iv) is really to construe the notification against itself. 36. Accordingly we find that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 could not be denied to M/s. Simac in the fact and circumstances of this case. 37. Accordingly, M/s. Simac were eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 120/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, and the order in review by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II to that extent is not correct. 38. As on the main ground of the applicability of Notification No. 120/75-C.E. the appeal filed by M/s. Simac merits acceptance, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the various other issues which have been agitated by them before us. 39. As a result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellants, if any.
-
1993 (11) TMI 112 - ITAT PUNE
Deductions, Income From Dividends, Interest, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... unal, including that of Pune Bench. We however, do not follow the said decision, in view of the fact that the decision in the case of Shri Krishna Bandar Trust is the later decision and, in our view, the earlier decision in Smt. Santimoyee Bose s case is impliedly overruled by the same High Court, though the said decision in Smt Santimoyee Bose s case was not cited before the same High Court in the subsequent decision, but implied overruling is very clear from the facts of the case. Moreover, the decision in Smt. Santimoyee Bose s case does not deal with the deduction u/s 80L of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and deals only with the status of a trust. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we follow the later decision of the Calcutta High Court and, accordingly, direct the revenue to assess the appellants in the status of an individual and, consequently, allow the deduction u/s 80L of the Income-tax Act. 13. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 109 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Book Profits, Special Provisions Relating To Certain Companies ... ... ... ... ..... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Previous Assessment Loss Cash Depreciation Loss or Cash Loss year year Profit/ Depreciation or Deprecia- Loss tion whichever whichever is less is less ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3/5) (4/5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31-03-1978 1978-79 64.11 (-) 3.14 60.97 60.97 3.14 31-03-1979 1979-80 31.33 ( ) 23.57 54.90 31.33 --- 31-03-1980 1980-81 728.54 (-) 528.88 199.66 199.66 199.66 31-03-1981 1981-82 306.46 (-) 28.82 277.64 277.64 28.82 31-03-1982 1982-83 393.45 (-) 112.85 280.60 280.60 112.85 31-03-1985 1985-86 286.33 ( ) 214.69 501.02 286.33 --- 31-03-1986 1986-87 235.97 ( ) 214.94 450.91 235.97 --- ------- ------ 1372.50 344.47 ------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
1993 (11) TMI 106 - ITAT MADRAS-A
Assessable As, Income ... ... ... ... ..... advantageous to it. That is to say, it is entitled to appropriate the said sums first towards principal. By the same token, there is no question of treating that part of the guaranteed sums appropriated towards principal as the assessee s income - thirdly and concomitantly there is no question of treating the sums thus appropriated towards principal as bad or doubtful debts for purposes of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) even when at a later point of time, the assessee writes off the amount in its books of account with the previous approval or concurrence of DICGC - fourthly and finally, that the interest and other charges component of the guaranteed sum, if any, appropriated towards interest and/or other charges will be brought to tax on receipt basis. 51. We, therefore, cancel the impugned order in revision and direct the Assessing Officer to decide the issue involved on the lines indicated above. 52. In the result, both the assessee s appeals are partly allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 104 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... rom 1st April, 1987 to 31st Dec., 1987. The ITO noted that on sales (which included cost of medicines also) of Rs. 4,21,861, the assessee had declared gross profit of Rs. 75,305 (at 17.84 ) and net profit at Rs. 22,224. He further noted that from indoor patients the assessee used to charge Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 per patient. He, therefore, estimated assessee s receipts at Rs. 5,00,000 and applying g.p. rate at 20 thereto estimated his profit at Rs. 1,00,000 which resulted in g.p. addition of Rs. 25,000. In appeal the learned Dy. CIT(A) reduced the additions to Rs. 15,000. 19. Though the learned counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that the estimation of the gross profit of the assessee was highly excessive yet after considering the facts found by the IT authorities, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the estimation made by the learned Dy. CIT(A) of assessee s gross profit. The addition of Rs. 15,000 is hereby confirmed. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 102 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
Rectification Of Mistakes, Apparent From Record ... ... ... ... ..... is case, we are surely of the opinion that the rectification dated 25-9-1991 is not justified and is illegal and therefore, cannot be supported. We also agree with the contention of the assessee that after the regular assessment under section 143(3) is passed, the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merges into it and afterwards it cannot be rectified except for the limited purpose of varying additional tax there should be change in the amount of income between what was originally taken in the intimation and the amount of income assessed. If there is no change in the amount of income, clause (b) to sub-section (1A) to section 143 cannot be pressed into service. 27. For all the various reasons given above, we hold that the rectification dated 25-9-1991 passed by the Assessing Officer is illegal, unjustified and cannot be supported under law or on facts. So also, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. We allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
1993 (11) TMI 101 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Book Entries, Cash Credits, Natural Justice, Unexplained Money
-
1993 (11) TMI 100 - ITAT DELHI-D
Reassessment, Non-Disclosure Of Primary Facts, Business Deduction or Loss, Allowable As ... ... ... ... ..... ned AR submitted that the view taken by the learned CIT(A) is inconsistent as also unjustified. He submitted that while the learned CIT(A) accepts that the TV belongs to Smt. Shashi Singla, he did not believe that VCR also belongs to her. He submitted that the assessee is a man of status and it is not improbable for his daughter-in-law to have received gifts on various occasions to enable her to buy a VCR for use with the TV. The learned DR supported the order of the learned CIT(A). 22. We have heard both the parties and have perused the relevant record. We are unable to sustain this addition for the reason that once having accepted that the colour TV was owned by Smt. Shashi Singla, it was not improbable to hold that the VCR also belongs to her since a VCR by itself has no meaning. This has to be used alongwith the TV. We, therefore, find merit in the statement made by Shri Ganeshan and delete the addition of Rs. 11,300. 23. In the result, both the appeals are fully allowed.
-
1993 (11) TMI 99 - ITAT DELHI-D
Investment Deposit Account ... ... ... ... ..... learned AR as also the learned DR. In our view, a further reduction of Rs. 2,500 is justified. 11. Now, we take up Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 and also Ground No. 7, all being interconnected. The assessee s grievance against two additions i.e. Rs. 10,65,178 and Rs. 8,102 is fully redressed and full relief allowed as above. His remaining grievance against disallowance of Rs. 10,000 is also substantially redressed the assessee having been allowed a relief of Rs. 2,500. In these circumstances, these grounds of appeal are only rendered academic and do not require adjudication of facts and in the circumstances of the case. Shri Ganeshan, the learned AR for the assessee was also agreeable to this. 12. Ground No. 8 is only consequential and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest chargeable while giving effect to our order. 13. Ground No. 9 is only general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 14. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.
-
1993 (11) TMI 98 - ITAT DELHI-C
... ...
... ... ..... the RBI. Since the purpose of the foreign visit was to establish an automotive filter manufacturing plant, the line in which the assessee is already engaged in, we are of the view that the nature of the claim is revenue. It is allowed. On facts the ratio of Bombay High Court in (1989) 80 CTR (Bom) 176 (1990) 185 ITR 267 (Bom) as relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative is not applicable. 15. The last grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in disallowing Rs. 23,250 under r. 6B of the IT Rules. 16. We have heard both the parties and have also perused the relevant details contained. There is no material on record to indicate that the presentation of article the cost of which has been disallowed at Rs. 23,250, carried any advertisement for the assessee. On a consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the provisions of r. 6B are not attracted. The assessee s claim is allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal is fully allowed.
............
|
