|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-B
Assessment Year, Business Assets, Market Value, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... lue does not represent the market value. Here also, we are not inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee. The value of motor cars for the purposes of insurance is adopted after taking into consideration the market value of the motor cars. It is true that the value may not be determinative of the fact that the insurance is done for other things as well, but the basic premium is determined for the damage of the car, the value of which is taken on the basis of market trends. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the value of the motor cars shown in their insurance policy was rightly taken as the basis for determining the market value. However, looking to the fact that the insurance company would also take other things into consideration in arriving at a particular value for the purposes of insurance, we feel that its market value can be reasonably estimated at 80 per cent of the insurance value. We direct accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
-
1996 (11) TMI 98 - ITAT BANGALORE
Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Interest Income ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee. The borrowal was for the purpose of renovation reconstruction and rehabilitation of the hotel business which was carried on by the assessee. Only the excess fund is invested in other institutions for the purpose of earning interest income. The investment is made under the authority of the memorandum of association. For all these reasons we hold that the assessee is entitled to adjust the interest earned towards the interest paid on the borrowed funds. 13. The last ground is against charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, etc. The charging of interest under the above sections is only consequential. Since we have cancelled the assessment there is no question of charging any interest under the above two sections. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 15. Coming to the stay petition, since we have already disposed of the appeal itself, the stay petition does not survive for consideration. It has become redundant. It is dismissed as such.
-
1996 (11) TMI 97 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-B
Appellate Authority, Assessing Officer, Assessment Year, Tax Demand ... ... ... ... ..... 0 (All.), which also helps the assessee inasmuch as even if it could be stated literally that the assessee did not make any specific disclosure about Rs. 9,25,000 in his return it was due to want of care by him without the absence of any fraud or wilful neglect and such want of care would not make him guilty of concealment. In fact, it is quite difficult to say even about the absence of want of care by the assessee as he has been all along informing the department by written representations that he had made a disclosure of Rs. 9,25,000 on the day of search itself. Thus, every bit of conceivable information with regard to the amount of Rs. 9,25,000 was in the conscious knowledge of the department, which fact also assists the assessee as has been held by the High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT v. Pawan Kumar Dalmia 1987 168 ITR 1/35 Taxman 136. 18. In the result, we are of the considered view that no penalty is imposable on the assessee. Penalty deleted. 19. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 96 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Modvat - `Steel balls' ... ... ... ... ..... n Clause (i) of the Explanation to Rule 57A of the Rules as held in Union Carbide India Ltd. case, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 613 (Tribunal). It is thus clear that Steel Balls are inputs and not excluded by exclusion Clause (i) and, therefore, Modvat credit is admissible. The reasoning in Electrosteel Castings Ltd., 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305 is, with respect, not correct. The distinction drawn in Magnetix (India) Ltd. case, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 317 (Tribunal) with reference to the decision in Electrosteel Casting Ltd. case, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305 (Tribunal) is with respect, not correct. The decision in M/s. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (Appeal No. E/216/91) is per incurium inasmuch as the earlier decisions and relevant aspects and technical literature were not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided the appeal. 12.We agree with the view taken by Collector (Appeals) that respondent is entitled to Modvat credit of the duty paid on Steel Balls under Rule 57A of the Rules. Appeal is dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Writ jurisdiction - Existence of alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... t mentioned in the notice was the amount which is liable to be paid. 5.We therefore feel that the proper course for the petitioner would be to file a reply to the demand-cum-show cause notice and that the question as to whether or not it is liable to pay interest can be determined by the appropriate authority. All points raised by the petitioner before this Court can effectively be raised with respect to the show cause notice and on being raised, we are sure that the appropriate authority will consider the contentions and pass an appropriate speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of the reply to the show cause notice. As the matter is to be adjudicated upon, the question of immediate realisation of any interest, cannot raise. However, the bond submitted shall remain in force till then. With the direction aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. Requisites for communication of this order shall be filed within a week.
-
1996 (11) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
... ...
... ... ..... and the authority concerned was in a hurry to rectify/amend its mistake. We do not think it proper to send the petitioners to agitate their grievance before the appellate forum. Such a direction, in our view, would amount to denial of justice and we do not intend to bury the fine flowers of justice at the altar of technicality. As we are taking this view, we quash the order of demand passed under Annexure-11 and permit the petitioners to file their proper show cause within six weeks from today. On show cause being filed the competent authority shall adjudicate the matter after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The entire adjudication shall be completed within two months from the date of filing of the show cause. We may hasten to add, if no show cause is filed within the stipulated period the order of demand passed in Annexure-11 shall become operative. 10.In the result, the writ application is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... of the authorities especially in view of the fact that the second sample was not sent in accordance with law. 11.From the material placed before me I find that there is non-application of mind by the authorities making detention order and the same appears to have been made just in a mechanical manner. As already discussed, the said order has been passed when the petitioner was already in custody and the respondents have utterly failed to show that in which manner is apprehended the petitioner s involvement in the prejudicial activities because the petitioner was already in custody and he could not have indulged in prejudicial activities. 12.On the strength of the aforesaid premises, I am satisfied that the detention order, copy Annexure P.1 passed by the respondent is bad in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside. Consequently, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby accepted. The detention order, copy Annexure P.1 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 92 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Revision - Notice ... ... ... ... ..... taken place in the litigation clearly shows that there is no unreasonable delay on the part of the Central Government in exercising the power of revision. It is not open to the petitioner to igonre the events that happened subsequent to the order of the Collector of Central Excise. The Central Government, on the facts of the case, has acted as swiftly as possible and within the reasonable period from the date of the judgment of this Court, and hence, I am not able to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is an unreasonable delay on the part of the Central Government in initiating the proceedings. 12 Further, the writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice. Though the respondents, in fairness, have not challenged the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the show cause notice, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable, and it deserves to be dismissed, and accordingly, it is dismissed. No cost.
-
1996 (11) TMI 91 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Penalty - Hosiery - Meaning of ... ... ... ... ..... . State of Orissa - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.) 83 ITR 26, penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. As is evident from the circumstances of this case, it is not shown that the dealer knew that it was not authorised to manufacture hosiery cloth from the yarn purchased from outside the State and yet used the same for such purpose thereby violating the provisions of Sections 8 and 10(d) of the Act. On the other hand, the dealer reasonably believed that he is justified in doing so and his belief was re-inforced by the conduct of the assessing officer in accepting that what he was doing unobjectionable. 15.For the above reasons, the Tribunal s order quashing the penalty does not suffer from any illegality. This revision petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs that I assess at Rs. 1,500/-.
-
1996 (11) TMI 90 - SC ORDER
Capital investment ... ... ... ... ..... ter states, The machine has been commissioned by them (the suppliers engineers) and working alright at present except a jerky movement of the slides. The letter is sought to be explained away by the appellants by saying that the word commissioned had been loosely used. We do not think that any interference in this matter is called for, having regard to the clear language of the letter aforementioned.
-
1996 (11) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... re the Tribunal stating merely that the counsel at New Delhi did not know the fact of writ petition having been filed in the Allahabad High Court. 4.I have heard Shri D.V. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5.The Tribunal s order dismissing the petitioner appeal for non-compliance of the conditions of pre-deposit of dues under Section 35F is an order under Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act against which a reference to the High Court could be sought under Section 35G of the Act. Even otherwise, in the circumstances of the case there is no reason to interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the order dismissing the restoration application is concerned the same also does not require any interference by this court in the extraordinary jurisdication under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
-
1996 (11) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT
Friction cloth ... ... ... ... ..... gh Court that it overlooked the fact that it was the Department s contention that the intermediary product was a marketable commodity meaning thereby that it was sold in the market or was having a market. It is, therefore, obvious that the Division Bench of the High Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption that it was nobody s case that this intermediary product was used or sold in the market. When it was contended by the Department that the product was a marketable commodity it was intended to convey that it had a market and was capable of being sold in the market. Unless there was a clear finding recorded on this aspect we do not think that the Division Bench was justified in allowing the petition and preventing the Department from requiring the industries to take out an L-4 licence. 3. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and direct that the writ petition will stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 87 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ld not be raised after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act. The writ petition was therefore, allowed and the impugned orders were quashed. That order has been followed in other writ petition being writ petitions No. 1106 of 1994 and 1774 of 1993. 2. I have heard Shri Dilip Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar, holding brief of Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the Union of India. It is agreed that the controversy stands settled by this Court by the said judgment dated 18-12-1995. Following the said judgment, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 28-2-1990, copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition and dated 31-12-1993, copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed and the demand of Rs. 3,72,519.90 raised against the petitioner by Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad is hereby quashed, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 86 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Recovery of Government ... ... ... ... ..... coverable under the impugned order, shall be disposed of by the respondent No. 2, before the respondents proceed to recover any amount recoverable under the impugned order which has been appealed against before the Collector (Appeals), Indore. We also direct that the respondents shall not recover any amount recoverable under the order appealed against before the Collector (Appeals) till the Collector (Appeals) decides the application for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount recoverable under the impugned order and/or the application for stay of recovery proceedings. 5.The aforesaid decision governs the fate of this petition. 6.In the result, I allow this petition and direct that the respondents shall not recover the amount disputed in the aforesaid appeal till disposal of the application dated 5-11-1996 by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Indore (Annexure- P/4 ). 7.The petition is, thus, allowed in terms indicated above without any orders as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ons as it may impose or such situation as may be warranted under the circumstances of the case. I find that by passing a detailed speaking order, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioners by permitting them to deposit only 25 of the penalty amount. It was open to the Tribunal to have refused the stay of deposit altogether. I have no reasons to take a different view. There is no ground for interfering with the discretionary exercise of the power by the Tribunal. 3. Before parting, it may be observed that in this petition the limited question involved was with regard to the deposit or the stay of deposit of the penalty amount. No part of this judgment shall be construed as any expression of opinion by this Court about the merits of the controversy between the parties before the Tribunal. 4. This petition is dismissed without any order of costs. 5. All parties concerned to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
1996 (11) TMI 84 - SUPREME COURT
Demand and penalty - Limitation - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... made aware of the allegation against it. This is a requirement of natural justice. Unless the assessee is put to such notice, he has no opportunity to meet the case against him. This is all the more so when a larger period of limitation can be invoked on a variety of grounds. Which ground is alleged against the assessee must be made known to him, and there is no scope for assuming that the ground is implicit in the issuance of the show cause notice. See Collector of Central Excise v. H.M.M. Limited, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 and Raj Bahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Limited v. Union of India, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 . 4. The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal under appeal is set aside. The bank guarantee given by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 4th April, 1986, as varied by the order dated 1st September, 1986, shall stand discharged. Any payment or deposit made by the appellant pursuant to these orders shall be refunded. 5. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 83 - SC ORDER
Bolts and nuts ... ... ... ... ..... t used for fastening and therefore fell under Entry 52. The challenge of the appellants before the High Court goaded the said court to treat the writ petition before it almost as appeals and it consciously went through the entire evidence led by the parties on record. It is thereafter that the High Court recorded a positive finding that the said nyloc nut was such a nut which was covered under Entry 52. It was viewed that the nyloc ring at the top of the nut even though not metallic in nature, only catered to improve the quality, but basically the nut remained a metallic fastener, having the special property of holding fast. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court under appeal and we find it well reasoned and with which we entirely agree. The nylon content in the nut is so insignificant that it cannot be permitted to over-power the basic content of the nyloc nut being a metal. We therefore have no hesitation in dismissing these appeals. Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT
Revision - Jurisdiction - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... thout assessing them to duty, it is obvious that even invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 35A was not competent. But that apart if the invocation was based on the earlier decision dated 7-4-1971 to which Counsel for the respondent invited our attention, the same was clearly barred by limitation. Besides the period in relation to which duty is now claimed is between 16-3-1976 and 2-6-1977, i.e., long after the order of 7-4-1971, and the revision order is clearly based on the notice of 21-3-1973 and is not based on the amendment by which the word laminated was added to Tariff Items 19-III and 22-B w.e.f. 16-3-1976. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35A of the Act was clearly not justified. 2. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders dated 13-4-1976 and 30-1-1979 to the limited extent of holding the appellant liable to pay duty for the period above mentioned. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT
Pistons, Gaskets - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... predominant user test in reaching the conclusion that Entry 34A was not attracted. This has been the consistent view of the Tribunal as can be seen from the orders passed in various matters from time to time. The learned counsel for the assessees supported the view taken by the Tribunal. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessees, we are of the view that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal cannot be said to be ill-founded. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the Revenue and the assessees, we are of the view that the decision taken by the Tribunal does not call for interference by us. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals on merits but make no order as to costs. 4. So far as the question of refund is concerned, it will have to be decided in the light of the decision that this Court may take on the issue of unjust enrichment and the law enacted in that behalf by the Central Government.
-
1996 (11) TMI 80 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... here were several appeals involving the same parties and these appeals were not heard together. Had they been heard together, the material commonly placed would have been available to the Tribunal in this matter. 3. In these circumstances, with the consent of counsel, we allow the appeal and set aside the order under appeal. We remand Appeal No. CD (SB) (T) 588/79-B2 to the Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, to consider the same afresh. The parties shall be at liberty to file the necessary evidence, as also copies of C. A. No. 1654 of 1988 in this Court and the order thereon. 4. There shall be no order as to cost.
....
|
