|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 286 Records
-
1999 (6) TMI 467 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... defect relates to a period of deferral of tax being advanced to November 30, 1996. The second error relates to the rate of tax being 2 per cent instead of 4 per cent adopted in the original order. 5.. It is next contended before us that the petitioner have no other remedy except, the matter to be brought before this Special Tribunal. This action is incorrect and not acceptable under section 55(4) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which is as follows The provisions of this Act relating to appeal and revision shall apply to an order of rectification made under this section as they apply to the order in respect of which such order of rectification has been made. 6.. For all the above reasons the original petitions fail and dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 15th day of June, 1999. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 466 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eal is not an adhesive as it is used for blocking of leakages and as per the Central Excise Tariff Rules, it was classified under item No. 32.14. 2.. Even according to the Tribunal, the M-Seal is not used as adhesive, but, only as blocking agent to block the leakages of liquids. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 465 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... demand notice, after deducting the period required for obtaining the service copy, the appeal was filed and it was thus within the period of limitation. This aspect has also not been disputed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellate authority was not correct in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation. On that count alone the appellate order as well as the subsequent revisional order cannot be sustained. 5.. In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned appellate order as well as the revisional order passed by the Board. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the appeal on merit. It is further directed that the appeal shall be disposed of within 4 (four) weeks from the date on which the representative of the company shall appear before the appellate authority to know the date of hearing of such appeal. The application is disposed of accordingly without any order for costs. Application disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (6) TMI 464 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ences, University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore, but also the decision of this Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Karnatakam Govindayya Setty 1984 55 STC 160 wherein it was held that in case of any doubt or ambiguity it should be answered in favour of the assessee for the reason that it in turn goes to make the goods available at lesser price to the common man. We do not see any reason to disagree with the view expressed by the Tribunal. The tax revision case is therefore, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 463 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... , read with section 13(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Therefore there is no question of any violation of the principles of natural justice in the action of the respondents in making a demand for payment of purchase tax in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 989 dated September 1, 1988. The arguments of the petitioners on the fourth issue also fails and the issue is held in favour of the Revenue. In fine, we do not think that any relief could be granted to the petitioners. All interim orders are vacated. The respondents are entitled to proceed in accordance with the law and the petitioners are entitled to seek statutory remedies in the event of orders of assessment being passed in any erroneous manner. All the petitions are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this on being produce by punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 11th day of June 1999. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 462 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... so indicated from the correspondence that the agreement dated August 31, 1994 had come into existence under suspicious circumstances. But we make it clear that we do not rest our decision on the above suspicious circumstances but we rely wholly on the legal infirmities in the execution of the said agreement dated August 31, 1994. Once we come to the conclusion that the earlier agreement dated April 22, 1991 and the conditions under which deferral benefit was given to KCP Mills had been violated the whole edifice built by the petitioners in making out a case for granting relief in the above O.Ps. falls to the ground. We have therefore no hesitation in dismissing the O.Ps as without any merits. All interim orders are vacated and the O.Ps are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on June 10, 1999. Petitions dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 461 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the First Schedule. Admittedly rubber gaskets are not mentioned specifically against any other item. There is also no dispute in the fact that the gaskets sold by the appellant are made of rubber. Hence, rubber gaskets sold by the appellant have to be classified only under item 101 in the First Schedule to the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. In view of this, I have to observe that the assessing authority has rightly assessed the turnover of rubber gaskets to tax at the rate of 9 per cent plus additional tax and surcharge. Hence, appeal is dismissed in respect of the following turnover. 5.. We are in agreement with the finding arrived at by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) and therefore we accept the reference by setting aside the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 39 of 1995 and restore the order passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (C.T.). With this direction, the tax revision case is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 460 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he share from additional excise duties, received by the respondent No. 1, the State of Assam. Copies of the Second Schedule and the budget receipts for the years 1991-92 to 1997-98 of the Government of India showing distribution of additional excise duties in lieu of sales tax to each State were furnished by the petitioner which showed that the share of the State Government was withdrawn during this period, in lieu of tax as stated above. 9.. This being the factual as well as legal position which the learned Government Advocate also fairly conceded, I find no necessity to have elaborate discussion on the submission of both the parties. 10.. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find merit in the petition, accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned imposition of levy of sales tax on zarda under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, is set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 459 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
... ...
... ... ..... refers to forfeiture of Rs. 30 lakhs being advance given to Radhe Construction, we do not find forfeiture of the said amount in the hands of Ashish P. Patel, from a reading of the order of the competent authority. Ground No. 2 which relates to the forfeiture of Rs. 9,50,000 in the hands of Ashish P. Patel does not show as to how the order of the competent authority is erroneous. The appellant did not produce any material before the competent authority in support of the contention now raised in the memorandum of appeal, that he did not retain any amount with him and that he passed on the money to Raksha H. Mehta. In the absence of any material placed before him, the competent authority was justified in directing the forfeiture of Rs. 9,50,000 in the hands of Ashish P. Patel. No other contentions were raised before us. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the competent authority. We confirm the same and dismiss all the appeals.
-
1999 (6) TMI 458 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1985 155 ITR 120. If a deduction under section 80-O is allowed with reference to the gross receipts of foreign exchange brought into India as claimed by the assessee, the deduction may go to reduce even the other incomes of the assessee included in the gross total income from activities other than those specified in section 80-O. I do not find any reason to think that, while the Legislature clearly intended to encourage export of technical know-how in terms of section 80-O, it wanted to encourage it to such an extent that the incentive amount goes to reduce not only the income from the activities specified in section 80-O to a nil figure but also reduce the incomes other than those specified in this section. On the other hand, the provisions of section 80AB, as mentioned by my learned Brother, clearly preclude an interpretation that assumes such open-ended liberality on the part of the Legislature. In this view of the matter, I agree with the conclusion of my learned brother.
-
1999 (6) TMI 457 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - Notification No. 175/86-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... n the Appeal Memorandum, that though respondents had given their address as ldquo D-172-173, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi rdquo , their SSI certificate was only for ldquo D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. rdquo As per the Central Excise Act, the factory that is eligible for the SSI exemption notification No. 175/86 is the factory which is coming within the definition of Section 2(e) of the Central Excise Act. The fact that there is a difference between the address of the factory given in the SSI registration given by the competent authority under the State Government (showing the factory at ldquo D-172 rdquo and not ldquo D-172-173 rdquo ) and the Central Excise records will not make any difference as for as availability of exemption benefit under notification No. 175/86 is concerned as both the premises are covered under the Central Excise records. In this view of the matter we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is dismissed.
-
1999 (6) TMI 456 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person - SSI Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ection 11AC of the Act or under Rule 209A. Since the appellants are succeeding on the above vital issues, we do not feel it necessary to go into other issues raised by both the sides. 15. emsp In the view, we have taken to pass the following order - (i) We hold that the price at which Dabur sells the same item to their customer should not be taken as basis in determining the price at the hands of the appellants M/s. BHPL. (ii) While computing the agreegate value of clearances for determining the benefit in terms of Notification No. 175/86, the value of clearances of two items namely Damoxy and Dabcilin which are branded goods of Dabur are to be excluded. (iii) In the facts and circumstances, there was no justification to impose penalty on the appellant unit under Section 11AC of the Act and also penalties on remaining appellants under rule 209A. Accordingly, we set aside the penalties imposed on them. 16. emsp Thus, the above twelve appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
1999 (6) TMI 455 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Nickel perforated rotary cylinder/screen - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ., dated 10-2-1986 which provided exemption to engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in the Textile Industry. He had observed that the goods were neither copper roller nor copper cylinder. The nickel perforated cylinder/screen were extended exemption under Notification No. 67/91-C.E., dated 25-7-1991 and the period involved in the present proceedings is prior to the issue of this notification. The period involved is from 1-12-1990 to 30-4-1991. No other exemption notification number under which the goods could be considered as eligible for exemption prior to the issue of Notification No. 67/91-C.E. had been brought on record. 4. ensp As the goods could not be considered as printing frames and as exemption to the nickel perforated rotary cylinder/screen was available only from 25-7-1991, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view of the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in this case. We do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 454 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... eal memo there was no whisper about limitation. He, therefore submits that on limitation the order of the Collector stands. 6. emsp Heard the submissions of both sides. We note that there were two issues raised in the SCN. The first issue of excisability was of the yarn in hanks. The second issue was on limitation. We find that the Collector in the order-in-original dealt with both issues and did not accept the department rsquo s contention either on merits or on limitation. From the papers placed before us, we find that the department has no doubt agitated the issue of excisability of the yarn in hanks but has not agitated the issue on limitation. Since on limitation the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee any decision on merits will only be of academic interest. Since the issue of limitation has not been agitated in the appeal memo which was subsequently decided in the order-in-original. We sustain the impugned order on limitation. Appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1999 (6) TMI 453 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Clinker used captively in the manufacture of cement - Exemption under Notification No. 7/92-C.E.
-
1999 (6) TMI 450 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice - Infructuous appeal ... ... ... ... ..... cise simply held that the classification lists were approved subject to the chemical test, therefore, he simply directed the jurisdictional authority to finalise the classification list. 10. emsp The Collector of Central Excise held that the show cause notice is premature. Therefore, he does not propose any action on the show cause notice. 11. emsp As the Collector of Central Excise has not proposed any action on the show cause notice, we find that this appeal filed by the appellants becomes infructuous. 12. emsp The grievance of the appellants is that the demand is time-barred. As the Collector of Central Excise, in the impugned order, mentioned that the show cause notice is premature, therefore, if the Revenue proposes to issue a fresh show cause notice, then the appellants will be at liberty to take the issue of limitation in accordance with law and the adjudicating authority will decide the issue of limitation afresh. 13. emsp The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1999 (6) TMI 447 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Show cause notice - Infructuous appeal ... ... ... ... ..... cise simply held that the classification lists were approved subject to the chemical test, therefore, he simply directed the jurisdictional authority to finalise the classification list. 10. emsp The Collector of Central Excise held that the show cause notice is premature. Therefore, he does not propose any action on the show cause notice. 11. emsp As the Collector of Central Excise has not proposed any action on the show cause notice, we find that this appeal filed by the appellants becomes infructuous. 12. emsp The grievance of the appellants is that the demand is time-barred. As the Collector of Central Excise, in the impugned order, mentioned that the show cause notice is premature, therefore, if the Revenue proposes to issue a fresh show cause notice, then the appellants will be at liberty to take the issue of limitation in accordance with law and the adjudicating authority will decide the issue of limitation afresh. 13. emsp The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
1999 (6) TMI 444 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Directors - Power of ... ... ... ... ..... tion 292 of the Companies Act, 1956, there can be no hesitation to hold that the accused before the trial court are prima facie liable to be proceeded against and punished for having committed offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. To put it in the words of the apex court, while dealing with the case of U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery 1988 63 Comp Cas 77 AIR 1988 SC 1128 (page 84) It cannot be doubted that in such capacity they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and were, therefore, deemed to be guilty of the said offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished under section 47 of the Act. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court finds that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The criminal writ petition is dismissed with no order as to the costs. Rule is discharged.
-
1999 (6) TMI 440 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
EXIM policy - Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) - Credit - Adjudication - Expeditious adjudication
-
1999 (6) TMI 439 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... written order. 2. emsp We do not find any requirement of existence of written order for this purpose. The paper book is a part of the appeal and ought to have been sent with the memorandum of appeal. A copy of this order may be given to the parties and may be sent to the Assistant Registrar lsquo A rsquo Bench, Delhi so that the paper book are sent without further delay. The appeal is posted for hearing on 1st July, 1999.
........
|
