|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 339 Records
-
1996 (11) TMI 430 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and flats would be exempted from this tax. In the instant case, the product that fell for consideration before the tax authorities was re-rolled angles, rounds, flats, etc. It is not the case of the petitioner s firm that the ingots and billets used as raw material suffered any tax under the Act. From the finding recorded by the assessing authority it is clear that it was only the scrap that suffered the tax from which ingots and billets were manufactured and ingots and billets used as raw material for the re-rolled rounds, angles and flats, etc., did not suffer any tax. In these circumstances, the re-rolled rounds, angles, flats, etc., cannot be exempted from the payment of tax in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 88, dated January 28, 1977 as held by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. In this view of the matter the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly this tax revision case is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any action to revise the order dated March 5, 1984 and secondly, the notice under section 10B was issued on July 27, 1988, i.e., after the period of four years had already expired. In the said notice it was specifically stated that the mistake is in the assessment order dated March 5, 1984 passed under rule 41(7) of the Rules treating the aforesaid turnover as exempted from tax. Therefore the period of limitation has expired. The Deputy Commissioner could not revise the said assessment order. In view of the above discussions, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was invalid and without jurisdiction and the dealer s second appeal before the Tribunal deserved to have been allowed. 9.. This revision petition is, therefore, allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated May 15, 1989. It is ordered that the dealer s Second Appeal No. 539 of 1988 (1979-80) stands allowed. The revisionist will get his costs of this revision petition from the respondent. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 428 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... honourable Mr. Justice Bhagwati has given his dissenting judgment. Above quoted observations of State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores 1978 42 STC 418 (SC) leave no manner of doubt that the Rajasthan Tax Board had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) granting reliefs to the assessee and to remand the case in toto to the assessing authority on the appeal of the assessee himself. The application for revision deserves to be allowed. 11.. Accordingly, the application for revision is allowed with costs. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the amounts of tax of Rs. 96,211, interest of Rs. 73,120 and penalties of Rs. 4,50,000 and Rs. 20,000 is restored. The order of remand passed by the Tribunal to this extent is modified. The assessing authority will examine all other transactions except the transactions involving the said tax of Rs. 96,211, interest of Rs. 73,120, penalties of Rs. 4,50,000 and Rs. 20,000. Petition allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 427 - RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... is that the entries which have no corresponding entries in the regularly maintained account books were simply related to orders and queries made by the customers. The examination of the persons whose names appear in the entries of loose papers and having no corresponding entries in the entries of regularly maintained account books was necessary to prove sale. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not safe to hold that these entries related to sale transactions. 10.. It is clear from the aforesaid discussions that this application for revision involves many questions of law. It is perfectly maintainable. 11.. Accordingly, the application for revision is allowed. The said tax and penalty imposed on the tax-paid tyres and tubes are set aside. The orders of the assessing authority (respondent) and the appellate authority are accordingly modified and the order of the Tax Board, Ajmer dated September 15, 1987 is set aside. No order as to costs. Application allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 426 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the licence fees paid should be added to the invoice value of the plant bought? - Held that:-Process licence fee paid being the cost of technical services provided and a sum of on account of engineering and consultancy fee payable to V.A., should be added to the value of the imported plant. Appeal allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 425 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... hat the goods were record player. The classification as ordered by the Department is not under Item No. 37A but under Item No. 37AA. When the Board rsquo s clarification was issued Item No. 37AA was not on the statute book. Therefore, reliance on this Board rsquo s circular is misplaced. 8. emsp Assessable value of the goods in question have been referred to at page 30 of the paper book. Their price range was Rs. 400/- to Rs. 475/-. Obviously they are not the tape cassette but the equipment in which the tape played. In our mind there is no doubt that they were tape players which includes cassette players and were correctly classified under Tariff Item 37AA as held by the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. 9. emsp Taking all the relevant considerations into account and in the light of the above discussions we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). As a result both these appeals are rejected. 10. emsp Ordered accordingly.
-
1996 (11) TMI 424 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
CLASSIFICATION ... ... ... ... ..... essee. As regards classification, we find that both the original and the Appellate Authority have given detailed reasons for their choice in support of the classification proposed. Ministry also in 11C Notification has categorically held that rubberised textile fabrics weighing not more than 1500 grams per square meter and in which rubber predominated in weight would fall under Heading 59.05. Since the same goods were earlier being classifiable under Item 19 and not under Item 16A, we find no merits in the various arguments advanced by the appellants. We, accordingly, uphold the order of the Collector and reject this appeal. Before parting with this case, we would observe that Assistant Collector in his order had not made or confirmed any demand. Collector rsquo s observation that demand within a period of six months from the date of show cause notice would sustain, does not seem to have any relevance, even if it had any, the Notification under Section 11C would take care of.
-
1996 (11) TMI 423 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Invocation of - Suppression of facts - Demand - Show cause notice
-
1996 (11) TMI 422 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... order in the Ujagar Prints case in 1989 (39) E.L.T. 493 1989 (21) ECR 1 (SC) ECR. C 1347 SC. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to consider the correctness of the earlier decision of the Tribunal even in the context of principal and agent relationship. rdquo It is therefore clear that the case of M/s. Pawan Biscuits and other cases relied on the adjudicating authority and which was canvassed before us by the learned SDR considered by the Tribunal in the light of the clarificatory order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints. In such circumstances, it is seen that the assessable value is not the value of the goods at which they are sold by M/s. BIL at their factory gate. But the assessable value is the sum total value of the raw material plus the value of jobwork done and the manufacturing profit and expenses on processing and would take in anything more. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 421 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
GSTC as a sick industrial company and recommended its winding up ... ... ... ... ..... want to resign to get the benefit under the award, must do so on or before 12-9-1996. Indeed this petition was instituted prior to that date. We did not grant interim relief, making it clear that at the time of final hearing, appropriate equitable relief could be considered even in the event the petition is to be dismissed. It may be possible that some of the workers may yet opt for the package deal. We have, therefore, no difficulty in directing respondent No. 1-Corporation to accept resignations until 10-12-1996, and afford to such workers the benefit under the award in the event they so choose and in no event, the benefit shall be denied to them if they come forward with their applications on or before 10-12-1996. This position will also be available to those who had applied but have so far not accepted the payment under the award. 14. For the foregoing reasons and subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT
Whether velavelan wood and karuvelan wood supplied by the assessee to Seshasayee Paper and Boards Limited, Pallipalayam and other companies for manufacture of pulp can be said to be firewood and as such exempt from sales tax?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The wood sold by the appellant may be used and described as firewood. But when it was sold with the object of being converted into pulp for manufacturing rayon, it was not being sold as firewood at all. The exemption is granted to firewood meant to be as firewood. The exemption cannot be extended to sales of wood for manufacture of rayon even though such wood is capable of being used as firewood and is generally used as such. The exemption is obviously for the benefit of people who buy or sell firewood for the purpose of using the same as firewood.This exemption is not for the benefit of persons who sell wood for manufacture of rayon pulp.
-
1996 (11) TMI 410 - SC ORDER
Having perused the language of section 37(1)(a) in so far as it relates to registered dealers along with the language of section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 the view taken by the High Court of Bombay which is impugned in the present appeals/special leave petitions is eminently just, legal and proper and we do not see any infirmity therein.
-
1996 (11) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT
Application for eligibility certificate rejected - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Apart from this bald assertion, there is no material produced by the respondents at any stage to support their claim that the price is not the real price. Moreover, the margin between the total amount of investment in the present case and the permissible limit of Rs. 20 lakhs specified in rule 3(66) is considerable, so that a bare assertion of this kind is alone not sufficient to reject the appellant’s claim. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to grant of the eligibility certificate as claimed by it.
-
1996 (11) TMI 399 - SC ORDER
Liability of the dealer to pay penal interest - Held that:- Having regard to the phraseology of section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the liability of the dealer to pay penal interest on the tax assessed or any other amount due under that Act arises only if such tax or amount is not paid “within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand”. There being no notice of demand, it was held that the liability to pay penal interest did not arise. It is necessary to emphasise that this is not a case of payment of interest at the ordinary statutory rate but a case of penal interest and it is, therefore, that the Act provides that the liability to pay the same arises only after there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of a notice in that behalf.
-
1996 (11) TMI 391 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... dustry like Shri Dipak Navnitlal whose name has been suggested by the learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada. The sale shall be subject to confirmation by this Court. Sale proceeds shall be deposited with the Official Liquidator and the same shall be kept in a separate account. The Official Liquidator is also directed to incur necessary expenditure so as to enable the committee to do the needful for selling the securities. 20. In the circumstances, this application is finally disposed of as granted. Rule is made absolute. 21. The learned Advocate Mr. Vasavada has submitted that this order should not be implemented for a period of eight weeks as Textile Labour Association desires to challenge validity of this order. 22. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, implementation of this order is not stayed but it is directed that for a period of six weeks from 18-12-1996 the committee shall not issue necessary advertisement for selling the assets in question. SCL q APRIL 5, 1999
-
1996 (11) TMI 390 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Company when deemed unable to pay its debts ... ... ... ... ..... rification regarding the payment of Rs. 3,000. Further no evidence was let in by the respondent-company therein to substantiate its solvency or readiness to meet the claim. On these facts, this court held that there is no bona fide dispute regarding the debt. In the instant case, the respondent-company denied its liability even prior to the statutory notice. Exhibit B-2, certificate given by the Central Excise Department shows that amounts of Rs. 1,47,63,213, Rs. 65,04,810, Rs. 1,01,36,970 and Rs. 2,11,59,206 were paid towards excise duty for the years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, which show its financial capacity and solvency. Thus, the decision relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him. As the liability is in dispute, this is not the proper forum for the petitioner and it is open to the petitioner to recover the amount alleged to be due to it by approaching the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the company petition is dismissed without costs.
-
1996 (11) TMI 378 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Manufacture - Appeal to Tribunal - Hearing - Old matter ... ... ... ... ..... ame law on passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 with effect from August 25, 1980. It is submitted that though a declaration as provided by Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 was made while introducing the said Bill in Parliament, such declaration cannot enable the excise authorities to include the charges of printing and lacquering in the assessable value of the said tubes and rigid cans. Not only is this argument untenable in law but it does not actually arise for consideration in view of our holding in Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1981, that even apart from the said Clause (f), the said charges are includible in the assessable value. rdquo 4. emsp In view of the position already settled by the Karnataka High Court decision and that of the Supreme Court decision, we find that the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in this case was net correct. The impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
-
1996 (11) TMI 377 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Project Import - Interpretation of statutes - DGTD Recommendation ... ... ... ... ..... uch a reservation could not have survived in view of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs cited (supra) in which it is held that recommendation made by DGTD was mandatorily to be accepted by the Customs authorities. The following citations made before us are not germane to the issue and, therefore, not discussed 1. 1985 (22) E.L.T. 84 (Tribunal) - Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd., Jaipur v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. 2. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 399 (Mad.) - Suresh Colour Labs v. Union of India. 3. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 837 (Tribunal) - DPS India (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. 4. 1985 (21) E.L.T. 753 (Tribunal) 1985 (6) E.T.R. 129 - Tractors And Farm Equipment Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras. On a perusal of all the material placed before us and on carefully considering the arguments made by both the sides, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
1996 (11) TMI 372 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the desiccated coconut that is produced by the respondents falls outside the scope of “copra” within sub-entry (viii)?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Having regard to the fact that there is material on the record, which has been accepted by the High Court, to show that copra is produced by breaking the coconut, it is difficult to hold that desiccated coconut, which is shredded copra, is not copra within the meaning of sub-entry (viii). It is not in dispute, as the High Court has noted, that coconut oil can be extracted from watery coconuts, copra and desiccated coconut. The main object of the coconut for use in the kitchen is met as well by the shredded copra as it is by the coconut itself.
-
1996 (11) TMI 358 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption totally from the levy of sales tax on the sale of edible oil claimed
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The exemption granted by Notification No. S.R.O. 93 of 1991 to local manufacturers/producers of edible oil is violative of the provisions contained in articles 301 and 304(a). At the same time, we direct that: (a) the appellants shall not be entitled to claim any amounts by way of refund or otherwise by virtue of or, as a consequence of, the declaration contained herein and (b) that the declaration of invalidity of the impugned notification shall take effect on and from April 1, 1977. Till that date, i.e., up to and inclusive of 31st March, 1977, the impugned notification shall continue to be effective and operative.
........
|
