|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1282
... ...
... ... ..... st invariably condone the delay irrespective of whether sufficient cause is shown or not. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, has held that the Department should give sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within the period stipulated in the Act and no circumstances or event which arise after the expiry of the limitation can constitute such cause. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, leading to the delay for filing of appeal before the expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act, the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case directly applies. Viewing thus, we have no option but to reject the petition of the Department for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal beyond the prescribed statutory period. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine, i.e., without going into the merits of the grounds raised therein.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... carry the matter any further because if the method of weighment is wrong it is wrong or if right it is right. As pointed out above by the jurisdictional High Court, the sampling method cannot be utilised for imposition of tax on the difference in valuation on that basis. Various arguments were raised about the correctness of the accounts maintained under the checks and supervision of excise and other authorities, but determination of that issue might not have any impact in deciding these appeals, because the addition is based on the difference in the stock and the valuation thereof. If the difference is there actually, addition can be made. On the other hand, if difference is estimated by sampling method or there is no difference, no addition can be made. It is, therefore, not necessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the maintenance of accounts by the assessee. The case now shall be fixed before the Division Bench for final disposing of the appeals.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1280
Condonation of delay - Held that:- Appeal allowed. On the facts of present case, Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in upholding order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby prayers for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement were refused and accordingly the delay in filing the petition for setting aside abatement is condoned, abatement is set aside and prayer for substitution is granted.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1279
Assessment - Additions to income, Casual and non-recurring receipts, Unexplained expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... also explained the source thereof, this vital fact had not been controverted by the Assessing Officer. The law is settled that what is apparent is real and the person who says that what is apparent is not real has to prove (ref.) Daulat Ram Rawatmull (supra). Otherwise also the onus under section 69C lay upon the revenue to establish beyond doubts that the appellant made alleged unexplained expenditures, which the Assessing Officer has totally failed to discharge this onus. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the Assessing Officer could not rebut the explanation submitted by the Doctor regarding the said expenditure of Rs. 25,000 incurred on ticket for visit to Germany. The CIT(A) had thoroughly examined the source of expenditure of the assessee and his sister Smt. Renuka Mishra and had arrived at correct conclusion. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this count. 15. In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1278
Investment allowance ... ... ... ... ..... which helps the industrial growth and development of the country should be given a liberal construction. He referred to the judgment of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT 1992 196 ITR 188 (SC). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the lower authorities had been misled by the fact that the Matador Van had been used for transporting the good outside the factory premises. It has been asserted by the Ld. A.R. that this vehicle was used for transportation of raw material, semi-finished goods within the factory premises from one place to another and from one location to another. For this purpose he had also relied upon the CBDT Instruction No. 617 dated 13-9-1973. Therefore keeping in view the detailed explanation given by the ld. A.R., we hold that this Matador Van is entitled to investment allowance. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow investment allowance of Rs. 29,472 on the purchase of this Matador Van. 6. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1277
Business expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... would be permissible under section 37(1) of the Act. It is not out of place to mention that the words used for the purpose of business under section 37(1) should not be limited to the meaning of earning profit alone . The business expediency or commercial expediency may require providing facilities like schools, hospitals etc. for the employees or their children or for the children of the ex-employees. We are, therefore, of the opinion that any expenditure laid out or expended for the benefit of the employees and their children and if it satisfies other requirements, must be allowed as deduction under section 37(1) of the Act. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any justification in reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is, therefore, sustained. 9. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. 10. Regarding cross objection, in view of our order as above, cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and which is, therefore, treated as dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1276
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in account ... ... ... ... ..... to whether the first respondent issued a valid statutory notice to the petitioner, and if there is deemed service of such statutory notice on the petitioner, pales into insignificance and would have no relevance for a decision in this petition. 9. Since this court in its supervisory jurisdiction can, under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code even suo motu correct the errors of courts subordinate to it, the fact that the courts below had concurrently found that the complaint is maintainable, by itself, is not a ground for rejecting this petition, because in the facts and circumstances stated even if all the averments in the complaint are taken to be true, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence under section 138 of the Act. The remedy, if any, of the first respondent is to proceed against the petitioner in a civil court. 10. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 294 of 1998 are quashed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1275
Order - Appealable order - Strictures against department ... ... ... ... ..... ed the latter that his remedy lies elsewhere. It is unfortunate that officers discharging public duty do not realize that their inaction can drive citizens to unnecessary litigation. 4. emsp In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and give the following directions. The appellant will file applications under Section 27 of the Customs Act claiming refund of duty in respect of the payments made by him under protest relating to the Bill of Entry Nos. 106968, dated 30-6-99 and 215910 dated 7-10-99 within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On receipt of such application the Dy. Commissioner, Customs to whom such applications are addressed will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. If the appellant is still aggrieved by the orders passed it will be open to him to take recourse to further proceedings in accordance with provisions of law. The appeals are allowed as above byway of remand.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1274
Sulphur, crude - Crude sulphur is also sulphur - Precedent - Decision, contrary decision in another case - Evidence
-
2002 (2) TMI 1273
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... nt and keeping the case in abeyance till the order of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT was available, the Bench in its impugned orders has committed an apparent mistake on record which calls for rectification. He, therefore, requests that both orders should be recalled and posted for reconsideration. I have considered these submissions. It is well settled that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. On a specific query, the ld. Counsel for the petitioners was not able to cite any decision which would hold that an order passed in respect of an issue pending before the Larger Bench of CEGAT per se is liable to be recalled in terms of the provisions of Section 35C(2) for rectification of mistake. As already stated above, the Tribunal had passed the impugned orders by following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Limited (supra) and there is no mistake in the said orders. The present petitions, therefore, have no merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1272
Adjudication - Natural justice - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... . Nufab Ind. Ltd. and others, in the same facts and circumstances of the case, remanded the cases back to the appropriate jurisdictional authority for adjudication de novo. Following the same, in these cases also, the proceedings are remanded back to the appropriate jurisdictional authority for adjudication de novo. Since the revenue involved is large, we deem it proper to prescribe a time frame for the de novo proceedings. The appropriate adjudicating authority shall within two months from the receipt of this order shall make available documents as asked for by the noticee. The noticees shall file complete and proper replies to the various allegations within two months after the receipt of the documents by them. The appropriate adjudicating authority shall, thereafter, direct them to appear before him giving sufficient time for them to appear and then pass appropriate orders. Both sides agree to comply with these directions. 14. emsp The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1270
Winding up – Power of Court to assess damages against delinquent directors, etc. ... ... ... ... ..... new their deposits. Prima facie this allegation could be the subject matter of the proceedings under sections 540(a) and 542(1) of the Act. However, this would require the official liquidator to show that ex-directors had by fraudulent means induced any person to give credit to the company for the purpose of its business being carried or for any other fraudulent purpose. In order to prove this charge, the official liquidator would be required to bring materials on record to bring the case within the four corners of sections 540(a) and 542(1) of the Act. The contents of the present application are for relief under section 543 of the Act and the applicant has not laid any foundation or led evidence for invocation of sections 540(a) and 542(1) of the Act and hence the court does not propose to entertain the submissions made by Mr. Pahwa for invocation of sections 540(a) and 542(1) of the Act. The Company applications is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1269
Banking matters - Suit for recovery of money ... ... ... ... ..... is the principal borrower and defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are the guarantors. Defendant No. 6 cannot be held liable as the letter dated 8-8-1977 was only an assurance by defendant No. 6 to pay the amount and it cannot be construed as a guarantee deed. It was nothing but a recommendation by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant No. 1 to advance the loan. The legal liability of a person arises only if a proper document is executed as was done in the case of defendant Nos. 2 to 5. Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 executed deed of guarantees. Letter sent by defendant No. 6 was a general assurance that defendant No. 6 takes the guarantee of making payment against the outstanding amount. This is a general assurance of a person without having any legal force. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, suit is decreed against defendant Nos. 1 to 5 for Rs. 2,29,548.31 with cost along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 19.5 per cent till realisation. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1268
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... e is no act of misdeclaration or non-declaration or suppression of facts or misrepresentation or fraud equally applied to the period involved in the present proceedings. 4. emsp It is not in dispute that the duty liability of the appellant was a subject of proceedings before the present show cause notice. In both the adjudication Order No. 25, dt. 7-2-2002 and No. 24, dt. 6-2-2002 material facts and circumstances relevant for determining whether there was suppression of facts was the same and the ground for issuing the demand was also introduction of the new tariff. In Order No. 25 Commissioner has held that there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts by the assessee. In our view, the present case also being similar to the case disposed of under Order No. 25, it should have been disposed of in the same manner. Accordingly, we accept the learned Counsel rsquo s submission regarding limitation. The appeal is allowed on that ground after setting aside the impugned order.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1267
... ...
... ... ..... reduced price given by assessee to buyers keeping the deposit, then the excise duty chargeable only on the uniform price paid by the buyer without any addition of notional interest on such deposits. This Bench has also taken similar decision, following the ratio of the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court judgment in VST Industries Ltd. (supra), vide final order No. 1212/2001 dated 25-7-2001 and upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and have rejected the appeals filed by revenue. Similar appeals filed by CCE, Hyderabad, CCE, Coimbatore in the case of Lokesh Machines Ltd. and M.M. Engineering (P) Ltd. were also rejected by this Bench vide final order No. 981 to 985/2001 dated 26-6-2001. Therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court rendered in VST Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad (supra) and various orders passed by this Bench, we find that there is no merit in these appeals filed by Revenue and the appeals are therefore rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1266
Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... se of suppression and the provisions of Section 11A(1) and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are directly applicable. The contention raised by the assessee that it had no mala fide intention to suppress the facts will not make any difference in view of the provisions contained under Section 11AC. The above view taken by the adjudicating authority was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp Before this Tribunal the only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant was the one directed against the imposition of penalty. It was contended that there was no intention on its part to evade duty and therefore, no penalty should have been imposed. We are not able to accept the above contention in view of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 11AC. We find no illegality in the imposition of penalty by the adjudicating authority which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1265
... ...
... ... ..... r-in-appeal dated 28-7-1995 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 3 lakhs in one case, and in another case from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs but upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 46,000/- and 34,000/- respectively, on them on account of illegal import of acrylic plastic scrap without obtaining licence, before the Tribunal, and that order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, admissible under the law to the appellants. 4. The learned Counsel has not been able to cite any provision of the law under which interest can be claimed by the appellants on the penalty amount refunded to them in pursuance to the Tribunal s above said final order Nos. A/743-744/1997-NB, dated 13-5-1997 Globe Sales Globe Products v. Collector - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 290 (T) . Therefore, this Misc. Application of the appellants being mis-conceived, is ordered to be dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1264
Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... th reference to jurisdiction was neither raised by the Revenue nor considered by the High Court in the final order while giving direction to the Tribunal in disposing of the matter. The High Court has directed the Tribunal as per final order in Writ Petition No. 1378/2002 (T-TAR), dated 28th January, 2002 to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks from the date of the order. The issue with reference to jurisdiction was neither raised by the Revenue before the High Court nor sought permission to transfer the matter to CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. Even now it is open to the Revenue to take appropriate directions from the High Court as if deemed fit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no alternative but to fix the date for final hearing in view of the direction given by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, the matter is posted for regular hearing on 26th February, 2002. Thus, these two misc. applications are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1263
Confiscation of goods - Smuggled goods - Benefit of doubt ... ... ... ... ..... on 112 of the C.A. rsquo 62. rdquo From the above, it is clear that the adjudicating authority has not discussed the statements or any evidence brought on record by the Revenue so as to show the smuggled nature of the goods. Admittedly, the silk yarn is a non-notified item under the provisions of Section 123 of the Act, and the Revenue is required to show that the same is of smuggled nature by production of evidence on record. I do not find anything on record, Even the statement as discussed in some detail by the Commissioner (Appeals), does not reveal that the yarn in question was smuggled from the neibouring countries. The appellant has only stated that he was buying the same from various residents of Murshidabad District. It is not clear as to whether the said residents have imported the yarn or have smuggled the same. As such, by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1262
Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... l hearing. The appellants filed an Application for clarification before the Adjudication Authority and the Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated 14-6-2001 issued the corrigendum to the Order-in-Original after making necessary corrections and this corrigendum was received by the appellants on 3-7-2001 and the appeal was filed on 28-8-2001 before the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the appellants is that in these circumstances the appeal was filed within the time limit. Their further contention is that no opportunity of hearing was granted before dismissing the appeal. 4. emsp As the corrigendum to the Order-in-Original was received by the Appellants on 3-7-2001 and the appeal was filed before the Commissioner on 28-8-2001, therefore, we find that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation. Hence the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merit. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
........
|
