|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 178 Records
-
1980 (1) TMI 195 - THE APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... tment has not produced any proof or evidence to show that the impugned goods are known as “strips” in the market nor sold as strips" in the market. 12. It should be pointed out that the lower authority acted without jurisdiction. He revised the classification originally approved by the Assistant Collector, Dvn. III, Pune who happened to be himself at the relevant time. If he felt that his order needed modification in the light of certain data that might have come to his notice, the proper course should have been to take a recourse to Section 35A of the CE Act, 1944 and not arbitrarily review /alter the order of the Assistant Collector, Dvn. III, Pune. On this very ground itself, his order was liable to be struck down. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the evidence discussed above, I allow the appeal with consequential relief. The impugned goods are correctly classifiable under Item 26AA(ia) of the CET.
-
1980 (1) TMI 194 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... xcise Rules, 1944’. They have been maintaining this stand right through the proceedings before the lower authority. They stick to it in the present proceedings before me also. 4. I find that the total difference in duty between the quantum payable and that actually paid was paid by the appellants once the mistake to which the short payment was attributable was noticed. This apart, the difference itself is a paltry sum. When viewed against this background, the offence committed by them turns out to be a mere infringement of the provisions of Rule 173G. And, an offence of this kind, arising as it did out of a clerical error and not otherwise, can reasonably be considered to be technical in nature unless there is evidence to prove the contrary which is apparently absent in this case. I am therefore, of the opinion that there are grounds for leniency. Accordingly I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants whom I request and caution to be more careful in future.
-
1980 (1) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... STC 262, a Bench of this Court held that if an order of the assessing authority was the subject of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner had no right to interfere with the order in suo motu revision. In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 263 the same Bench reiterated the position after examining the matter a little more in detail. The later decision in Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 1978 42 STC 263 has been found to be good law in a judgment of the Full Bench in Tax Case No. 342 of 1975 Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Madras 1981 47 STC 155 (FB) . In view of this well-established position, the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner was not exercisable in the present case, and the Tribunal was right in its conclusion regarding the legality of the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 192 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respectively. As the reassessments have been made after the said dates, the contention was that the items of turnover could not be brought to tax under any valid proceedings taken under section 16. This contention has to be negatived in view of a decision of this Court in Tax Case No. 89 of 1976 in the case of State o Tamil Nadu v. K. 0. Mohamed Sulaiman and Co. 1980 46 STC 151, in a judgment dated 12th November, 1979. After referring to several decisions, it was pointed out that so long as the proceedings were initiated and pending within the statutory period, there is no time-limit to the completion of the reassessment. It is not in dispute that in the present case the proceedings were pending within the statutory period. Therefore there is no bar to the completion of the proceedings of reassessment within a period of 5 years as referred to in section 16. The result is these two revision cases fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 191 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... resent case, the petitioner-assessee, instead of complying with the notices and availing of the opportunity to rebut the statements of the purchasing dealers that they had not effected any purchases from it, has sought not to co-operate and tried to indulge in mud-slinging against respondent No. 1, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, and respondent No. 2, Shri Gurbachan Singh, Assessing Authority/Excise and Taxation Officer, by saying that respondent No. 2 would not bring to bear an unbiased approach to the case as he had filed, under the instructions of respondent No. 1, an F.I.R. against one of the partners of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, as already observed, cannot have anything personal against the petitioner. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. An oral request for granting a certificate of fitness for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court is considered without merit and is declined. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 190 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the basis of the parent provision and without reference to section 4(1), as it stood after the amendment by Orissa Act 15 of 1968. Under section 4(3) of the Act, every dealer who has become liable to pay tax under the Act is to continue to be liable until the expiry of three consecutive years during each of which his gross turnover has failed to exceed Rs. 25,000. Therefore, the assessments made for the subsequent periods in this case were also not invalid. 6.. Our answers to the questions referred accordingly are (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was wrong in annulling the assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1969. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was wrong in annulling the assessments for the year 1969-70 and the quarters ending 30th June, 1970, and 30th September, 1970. We make no order as to costs of these proceedings. DAS, J.-I agree.
-
1980 (1) TMI 189 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er section 16(1)(c) and (e) were imposed by the assessing authority on the ground that there had been concealment on the part of the assessee to disclose the turnover of Rs. 1,66,277.21 on account of sale of iron and steel and also on account of non-disclosure of the sale of electrical goods amounting to Rs. 14,075.20 which are the subject-matter of questions Nos. (3) and (4). But since we have held that the Board was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no concealment or deliberate suppression on the part of the assessee there was no occasion for levying the penalties under section 16(1)(c) and (e) of the Act, and therefore, question No. (2) cannot be said to arise out of the Board s order. The net result of the foregoing discussion is that we do not consider this case a fit one for requiring the Board to State a case and refer any question to this Court for decision. The application is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 188 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he question before the High Court was whether meat exposed for sale in the market after cutting or slaughtering goats or sheep cannot be said to have been manufactured after consuming the goat or sheep. The High Court held that there was no consumption resulting in the manufacture of other goods within the meaning of section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The learned Judges at page 220 have observed that the meat exposed for sale is still of goat or sheep and they have pointed out the distinction between meat on hoof and meat or dressed meat. For our present purpose, it is unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of treating meat as equivalent to goats or sheep. It is enough for our present purpose to point out that the commodity with which we are concerned is wholly different and so it is not possible to apply the said decision here. The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are the turnovers which would come within the scope of that provision. Since we have held in T.C. Nos. 894 and 895 of 1977 that coloured leather also would come within the expression hides and skins, whether in a raw or dressed state , as contemplated by section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion and, therefore, no case has been made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these two tax cases are dismissed. T.C. No. 975 of 1979 has also been preferred against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In this case also, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that coloured leather will answer the description in section 14(iii) of the Central Sales Tax Act and that, therefore, this turnover will be liable to only a single point levy, as contemplated by section 15 of that Act. Since we have also taken the same view in T.C. Nos. 894 and 895 of 1977, this tax revision case is also dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 186 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e separate and the machinery or the goods of which they were accessory could be used as such as well. For instance, electric wiring can be done without wooden casing and switch-board also. The oil-can or steel file supplied with chaff-cutter was not part of it. It was supplied separately. These decisions cannot be helpful to resolve the controversy as oil gauge supplied by the assessee is a part of the machinery itself. It cannot be considered to be an accessory. An item which is part of machinery does not become accessory only because it is not as essential or integral part as others. In the circumstances, these revisions succeed and are allowed in part. The question of law raised is decided by saying that. windscreen wipers were not taxable as machinery part but oil gauge supplied by the assessee to Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, was taxable as spare part of the machinery. In view of the divided success, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed in part.
-
1980 (1) TMI 185 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... individual case. Thus, the question whether banians were included in the term hosiery products was not ex facie answered against the assessee, but was left open. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we are inclined to hold that it cannot be said that there was any mens rea or guilty intention on the part of the petitioner when it claimed exemption on the sale of banians on the ground that banian is a garment and not a hosiery product. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner fraudulently evaded or avoided payment of tax or concealed its liability to tax. Having come to the conclusion that there was no mala fide or mens rea on the part of the petitioner, we must hold that the taxing authorities were not justified in imposing penalty on the petitioner under section 16(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, we answer the question of imposition of penalty in favour of the assessee, i.e., in the negative. There will be no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eized, are incriminating against the petitioner. That is too bald a statement and hardly a reason for seizing quite a large number of registers and accounts. 12.. Apart from that, the respondent has seized the books of account and registers not only belonging to the petitioner but also those belonging to the Padma Industries Engineering Company, Belgaum. The search warrant issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum, did not authorise the respondent to search the premises of Padma Industries Engineering Company. The respondent, therefore, had no power to search and seize the books of account and registers belonging to the Padma Industries Engineering Company. 13.. In the result, the rule is made absolute. There shall be a direction against the respondent to return to the petitioner all accounts and documents seized on 2nd February, 1978, along with the copies and notes, if any, made therefrom. 14.. The petitioner is entitled to costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 183 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as intimately and essentially connected with the manufacturing process carried on in the laboratory of the assessee. The Tribunal did not however enter any finding on the assessee s contention that they acted bona fide in the belief that the Otis lift was covered by the registration certificate. The High Court held that as the assessee bona fide thought that the Otis lift was included within category (b) or category (c) and as neither the assessing officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had given any finding that the assessee did not or could not have entertained any bona fide doubt and, therefore, the offence under section 10(b) had been committed, the imposition of penalty was illegal. This case again has no parallel to the present case. None of these decisions will assist the petitioner, for, the facts involved in them are totally different from the facts in the case before us. We dismiss the revision but, in the circumstances, without costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 182 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t-matter with which the statute is dealing would attribute to it see Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Pai and Co. 1980 45 S.T.C. 58 (S.C.). Also see Goyal Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax1971 U.P.T.C. 697. The fact, however, remains that no evidence has been given by the assessee to show how these entries, that is, of bones and fertilisers, are understood in common parlance. Further, it may not be necessary to deal with this aspect because, as noted above, the assessee has been exporting these commodities to foreign countries and that the use to which this commodity can be put is as raw material for manufacture of glue and gelatine. In my opinion, therefore, crushed bones cannot be treated as fertilisers but they are to be treated as bones described in entry No. 11 of the First Schedule to the Act. The revisions are hence dismissed. The Commissioner of Sales Tax is entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200, but of one set only. Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 181 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 9.. The counsel further submits that at any rate a stay of collection operated during the pendency of O.P. No. 3496 of 1973, which was disposed of only on 14th February, 1975, when the O.P. itself was dismissed. The counsel says that until then no penalty could have accrued. I am not impressed by this argument, for the effect of an interim stay is not to prevent the accrual of interest or penalty that is due and payable under the statute, but to impose a fetter upon the recovery of such amounts. With the dismissal of the O.P. and the removal of the fetter under the interim order, the interest which had been accruing as per the relevant provisions became recoverable. That being the position, interest which had accrued during the relevant period is payable by the assessee and recoverable by the department in terms of the statute. The attack on exhibits P-1 and P-3 fails. The O.P. is dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 180 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ioner of Sales Tax 1978 41 S.T.C. 387 1978 M.P.L.J. 334., it is clear that the Tribunal in that case had found that the price of the packing material had been taken into account in fixing the price of the goods sold. Similarly, in Patel Volkart Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1972 29 S.T.C. 515 1972 M.P.L.J. 221., the Tribunal had found that the contract entered into by the assessee in that case made it obligatory to supply cotton with the packing material. In the instant case, no such finding was arrived at by the Board. In these circumstances, it must be held that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in holding that there was no implied sale of the packing material along with the sale of bales of cloth and yarn. 6.. The reference is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1980 (1) TMI 179 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dia Pistons Limited 1974 33 S.T.C. 472. was noticed by the Supreme Court at page 35 and it was pointed out that the rebate of bonus discount was not allowed by this Court because it was in the nature of an incentive bonus paid to distributors whose net purchases exceeded the target figure, and did not and could not affect the sale value of the goods sold by the assessee as the sale price remained undisturbed in the contract between the parties. That is not the position in the present case. Implicit in the decision of the Supreme Court is the proposition that even if the amount adjusted does not fall strictly within the concept of cash discount, still the amount is capable of adjustment in the sales tax assessment provided it goes to vary the price payable in respect of the goods. There is thus no error committed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, these revision petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250 (one set). Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (1) TMI 178 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... artment to justify the notice nor any answer was given to the point raised that the confidential disclosure made before the income-tax authority could not be used by the sales tax department and taken advantage of. For the reasons as aforesaid the petitioner succeeds in this application. A writ in the nature of mandamus will issue directing the respondents not to give any or any further effect to the said impugned notice dated 28th November, 1972. A writ in the nature of prohibition will also issue commanding the respondents not to take any or any further steps pursuant to the said impugned notice. There will be a further direction upon the respondents to return the books and documents of the petitioner which are lying seized in their custody since 1972. The said books should be returned within four weeks from date. The rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs. This order will be stayed for four weeks from date. Rule made absolute.
-
1980 (1) TMI 177 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... five per cent. 3.. The same problem arose in the case of Bavchand and Co. v. State of Orissa 1976 38 S.T.C. 42. and after considering all the aspects it has been held that silver ornaments came within the entry in serial No. 27 of the list of taxable goods and with effect from 15th May, 1970, the enhanced rate of seven per cent became applicable. Thus, in the assessment year 1971-72, which is the relevant period in this case, the assessee s liability had to be computed at seven per cent in respect of silver ornaments. Adopting the reasons given in the reported decision, we answer the question referred to the court holding On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was not justified in directing levy of tax on the turnover of silver ornaments at the rate of five per cent. On the other hand, seven per cent is the rate applicable to the said turnover. We make no order for costs. DAS, J.-I agree. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1980 (1) TMI 176 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommodities obtained from stalk, leaves and husk of grains and as such rice bran cannot be treated as bhusi of rice. It is not denied before us that chauper which is sold by the assessee, is commercially used as cattle feed and is commonly sold for that purpose. It is also not denied that cattle feed is exempted from payment of sales tax. In our view, chamber is merely the husk of wheat, which is separated when powdered wheat or flour is passed through sieves and is not wheat bran. As it was conceded before the Board of Revenue that chauper is cattle feed and this fact is not even disputed before us that it is commonly used as cattle feed. The question as to whether it is bran or not has no importance in this view of the matter that the article sold by the assessee, namely, chauper, is covered by the item cattle feed , which is exempted from payment of sales tax. We, therefore, decline to call the references. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. Applications dismissed.
........
|
