|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 252 Records
-
1995 (4) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT
Zinc calots and pellets - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... tting cap without visor or brim, a woman s or child s cap, an ice cap, etc. The intermediary product does not answer that description. The Tribunal was, therefore, clearly wrong in jumping to the conclusion that the intermediary products were calots merely because it came to the conclusion that it was not pellets. The Revenue has not come in appeal against that part of the order nor has it contended before us that it is pellet. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the instant case the department had failed to show that the intermediate product answers the description of calot and was, therefore, liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 26B(2a). 4. In this view of the matter we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and hold that the intermediate product manufactured by the appellant did not fall within Tariff Item 26B(2a). The appeal will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs. In the view that we take we need not go into the other questions.
-
1995 (4) TMI 71 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Words and Phrases - `Includes' - Meaning of - Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... efinition, would depend upon the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours, it would be difficult for us to hold that the notice to show cause has been issued without jurisdiction and, on the other hand, this will be a matter to be gone into in the proceeding that has been initiated. 6.In view of the aforesaid conclusion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ application must be held to be premature, and the notice to show cause cannot be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Each of the writ applications accordingly fails and is dismissed. Since the petitioner had approached this Court on receipt of notice to show cause, and had obtained an interim order of stay, if no show cause has been furnished, then the petitioner should file show cause within four weeks from today whereafter the authority issuing the notice would conclude the proceeding in accordance with law. We make no order as to costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT
Demurrage charges ... ... ... ... ..... e Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the airport by the Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea port by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference. 5.In the said view of the matter, the judgments and decrees under appeal are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff calls to be decreed against exporter-consignor, Defendant 1. 6.In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decree the suit O.S. No. 3980 of 1969 against Defendant 1 as prayed for, with costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 69 - SC ORDER
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ame on merits without insisting on the deposit of any amount for hearing of the appeal. 3. In view of this statement made on behalf of the respondent, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the Tribunal for being heard and decided on merits. 4. In the circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate that the Tribunal hears and disposes of the appeal within a period of four months from today.
-
1995 (4) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Seized goods - Release of - Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... left with no other option except to pass the following order that in case no order has yet been passed by the respondents in accordance with the directions of this Court on 6th January, 1995 in the aforesaid earlier writ petition as also the said order has been served on the respondents, the respondents will release the goods seized provisionally which were through seizures dated 23-8-1994 and 14-9-1994 subject to the condition that petitioner will execute bonds and furnish security in the form of National Saving Certificates or similar such certificates acceptable by the respondents in accordance with Rule 206 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On petitioner s furnishing such certificates provisional release of goods seized may be made within a week thereafter. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is finally disposed of. 7. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours on payment of necessary charges.
-
1995 (4) TMI 67 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Appellate order passed by Tribunal - Non-implementation of ... ... ... ... ..... aid to be still pending with respondent No. 2. 3. It is a matter of great regret that the petitioner should come to this Court to seek a mandamus for such purpose. 4. Upon hearing the parties, the petition is disposed of finally directing respondent No. 2 to decide the aforesaid refund claim of the petitioner within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner.
-
1995 (4) TMI 66 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Writ jurisdiction - Patent error of law ... ... ... ... ..... ternative remedy. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered opinion, the argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Government that supervisory jurisdiction of this court should not be invoked on account of existence of an alternative remedy of appeal under the statute, therefore, cannot be accepted. 7.In the premises, aforesaid, the impugned order of the adjudicating authority under Annexure-I is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector of Central Excise for re-determination after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the existing materials on record. The writ application is allowed. The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the Additional Collector on 24th of May, 1995, who shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by us in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. - I agree.
-
1995 (4) TMI 65 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... khs, and that too in monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000/-. The entire penalty has been waived. I am of the opinion that the order is a well-considered order, which has taken note of all the relevant circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that clearance was being made in accordance with the classification list and the show cause notice came to be issued nearly three and half years later. In other words, it is not as if that the petitioner was removing goods clandestinely, and this aspect of the case has not been noticed by the first respondent. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal will take note of only those points which are argued, and in any event, the fact that the goods had been removed under a classification list will not prevent the 2nd respondent from issuing show-cause notice, imposing duty as per the statutory enactments. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 64 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ion No. 159 of 1978, dated August 26, 1978. Obviously, the Tribunal s finding implies that the proportion of hessian in the total product is far below fifty per cent and that in commercial world the product is still known as bituminised water-proof paper. On this basis, we decline to interfere. 2. In view of the above finding, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Cement including Clinker would cover white cement?
Held that:- The entry in question makes a clear reference to the connected policy of the Government in the Ministry of Industry in connection with the items canalised at Serial No. 8 of Appendix 5 Part B. This connected policy of the Government is reflected in the Imported Cement Control Order of 1978, the Cement Control Order, 1967 and the Press Note which do not cover within their ambit white cement. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
-
1995 (4) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT
Exigibility of aluminium dross and skimmings to excise duty by reason of Item 68 and its Explanation read with the Explanation to Item 27
Held that:- It is not possible to consider aluminium dross and skimmings as "goods" or as a commercial and marketable commodity. Dross and skimmings are merely refuse or ashes given out in the course of manufacture, in the process of removing impurities from the raw material. This refuse is quite different from waste and scrap which is prime metal in its own right. The Explanation to Item 27 is not for the purpose of separating certain types of wastes and scrap from the main Item of "Waste and Scrap of aluminium" and thus making it exigible to tax under Item 68. The Explanation to Item 27 merely excludes from waste and scrap certain residues or rubbish which cannot be categorised as "goods"at all. It is only those goods, which are otherwise liable to be included in a given Tariff Item, but are expressly excluded from it, which fall under the residuary Tariff Item 68.Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the appellant who exported the concerned excisable goods as ship's stores for consumption on board vessels bound for any foreign ports has to pay on these goods excise duty as per Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules or whether the appellant's goods are liable to pay excise duty as per Rule 12 of these Rules'?
Held that:- It is not possible to agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court that because under Rule 12 the manufacturer earns more profit by selling in local market for home consumption, the exporter under Rule 12 may bear a larger burden of excise duty as compared to the exporter, manufacturer of the same type of goods under Rule 13. Similarly, it is not possible to appreciate the reasoning adopted by the Calcutta High Court in para 28 of the report to the effect that under Rule 13 what is sought to be secured is the proper exportation of goods and not duty to be borne by the exporter. It has to be kept in view that excise duties have nothing to do with the exports as such or with the charging of custom duty on export. They are only concerned with charging and recovery of excise duties which are attached to the manufacture of the goods and their clearance either for home consumption or for export as the case may be. The Calcutta High Court is also in error in taking the view that the words "in the like manner be exported" as found in Rule 13 deal with the procedure for export, as the procedure is already provided in the same rule by making an empress provision that such an export will be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter IX of these rules.
It must therefore be held that when the rule 13 refers to the export to be made in the like manner, it would necessarily mean subject to the same conditions and requirements as laid down by the preceding Rule 12 which refers to the same topic, namely, export of excisable commodities and excise duty payable on them whether the manufacturer of articles has exported them after payment of duty or before payment of duty would make no difference on these aspects. It must therefore be held that the decision of Calcutta High Court cannot be treated to be laying down correct law. On the contrary as seen earlier the decision of the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise [1980 (11) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI] has correctly interpreted Rules 12 and 13. The Tribunal was therefore right in following the decision of Delhi High Court and coming to its conclusion in that light. In the result these appeals fail and are dismissed
-
1995 (4) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the self starter manufactured by the appellants falls under Tariff Item 30 being an electric motor, or it is covered by residuary Tariff Item 68 as applicable at the relevant time?
Held that:- It is the inter-connection between the electric motor on the one hand and solenoid and other connected apparatus on the other, that together result in the manufacturing of self starter motor. Consequently, it must be held that on the express language of Item 30 the self starter motor manufactured by the appellant is not covered by it. [If] that is so, it would naturally fall within the residuary Item 68 as contended by the appellants. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The orders passed by the Tribunal as well as other lower authorities are set aside and it is held that the self starter motors manufactured by the appellants were liable to bear the duty of excise under Item 68 as applicable at the relevant time.
-
1995 (4) TMI 59 - SUPREME COURT
Whether disinfectant fluids manufactured by the appellant were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975, as amended by Notification No. 62/78, dated 1-3-1978?
Held that:- Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the goods produced by the appellant from phenolic compounds and high boiling tar acid being disinfectant fluids which have the capability of killing bacteria which are nothing but pests, the appellant was entitled to exemption under Item 18 of the notification issued in 1978
-
1995 (4) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Finding Of Fact, Penalty Proceedings, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... e sales and in the closing stock. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact that there was no discrepancy in the stock warranting a conclusion that there was a sale of gum without enough of stocks as disclosed by the books, and also in view of the concluded finding that the alleged consignment purchased on July 31, 1982, for Rs. 88,113 was entered in the books of account and the quantity must have been accounted for in the sale including stocks and also in view of the findings that the credits in the books of the Bombay office were all on dates subsequent to the dates of withdrawal of the amount from the Delhi office, it cannot be said that the assessee had given no explanation as to wherefrom the extra money had come. In view of the aforesaid findings, we cannot but hold that the question sought to be referred to this court for its opinion is based on a pure finding of fact which does not give rise to any question of law. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (4) TMI 57 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the evidence placed before it. Otherwise, there is a danger of a contention being advanced that whenever an assessee or any other person liable under the Act had failed to convince the authorities in the proceedings under the Act that he has not deliberately made any false statement or that he has not fabricated any material evidence, the conviction of such person should invariably follow in the criminal court. This being the position enunciated by the Supreme Court, I find myself in respectful disagreement with the view of the Kerala High Court. Otherwise also no useful purpose would be served in quashing the proceedings as such and then inviting the Department to file a fresh complaint, if necessary. Keeping in view the decision in the case of P. Jayappan 1984 149 ITR 696, the revision must be held to be without merit. For these reasons, the revision petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 56 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ws For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely, . . . (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee, but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return In our opinion, in view of the aforesaid provisions contained in section 147 of the Act and its Explanation 2(b), there cannot be doubt that even if assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 has not been made in terms of section 143(1)(a) and section 143(3) of the Act and only intimation has been sent to the petitioner in the return filed by it, the notice as contained in annexure-7 can be issued under section 148 of the Act and there is no illegality in the same. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1995 (4) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Assessment Proceedings, Carrying On Business, Factory Building, Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Let Out, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice
-
1995 (4) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Sale Proceeds, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... sion is in effect also in the line of incentives to increase export and this incentive would be lost if its application is much too restrictive. That is why the Commissioner has, for recording satisfaction, to keep in mind whether delayed receipt of sale proceeds was beyond the control of the assessee and he was unable to do so within the said period of six months. Hence, the impugned order except to the extent for an amount of Rs. 13,25,800, which is not pressed as aforesaid, is not sustainable. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order dated January 29, 1994 (annexure 9 to the petition) to the aforesaid extent and direct the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur, to decide afresh the application of the assessee in the light of the observations made by us in accordance with law. In the result, the present writ petition is partly allowed. Costs on parties. Certified copy of this judgment be issued to counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within one week.
-
1995 (4) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... isfactory. The said conclusions are neither perverse nor have they been arrived at contrary to legal principles. So far as the second question is concerned, in our opinion, that does not survive for an answer. As the addition of Rs. 85,000 has not been made as income from any particular business activities of the assessee, but merely on the ground that he has been found in the possession of cash amount and two air tickets the source of which has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the further question of allowing any loss or expenditure as incidental to and arising directly as a result of its distinct business activities does not arise. We accordingly answer the first question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the second question in the negative, that is to say, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The respondent shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 1,000 (Rs. one thousand only).
....
|
