|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 229 Records
-
1985 (3) TMI 258 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ly produced as such in the size imported and they did not originate through crushing, cutting, grinding or polishing of natural or synthetic precious or semi-precious stones and since the Department has not controverted this contention of the appellants, we hold that the Heading 71.04 did not cover the goods imported. Further, for the reason already discussed and put to both sides, we hold that the Heading 71.02 also did not apply to the goods. Consequently, the goods are held to be covered by the Heading 71.03 which is the only relevant entry left for consideration and which is wide enough to cover the goods. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct that the goods should be reassessed under the Heading 71.03 read with any exemption notification in force during the relevant period. We direct that if upon such re-assessment the appellants are found entitled to any relief, such relief should be granted to them. 7. The five appeals are disposed of in these terms.
-
1985 (3) TMI 257 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cture” includes any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product, namely, yarn in terms of the inclusive definition of the word “manufacture” in Section 2(f) of the Act. Sizing is, undoubtedly, a process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufacture of the yarn exigible to duty under Item 18A of the First Schedule; (f) that this was so, was clarified by the amendment made to the aforesaid Section 2(f) in 1964 wherein it was clarified and put beyond doubt that “manufacture’ in relation to goods comprised in Item No. 18A of the First Schedule includes sizing. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the benefit of exemption contained in Notification No. 95/61 cannot extend during the relevant period to cotton waste resulting on sizing of the yarn. 3. In view whereof, we allow the Appeal, quash the unadjudicated notice to show cause and direct that the Appellant be given all consequential relief, if any.
-
1985 (3) TMI 256 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... reported is of the Allahabad High Court which does not seem to have any bearing on the present dispute. The second decision cited is of the Government of India in Shasun Chemicals Private Ltd., 1982 E.L.T. 786. The Government had taken the view that the expression “Drug intermediate” must be understood in the commercial sense for the purpose of exemption notification No. 55/75 and not in the scientific or technical sense. It is seen from the said order that the evidence placed before the revision authority showed that the chemical substance under consideration there was recognised as a drug intermediate in international trade parlance and the authority took the view that exemption should be extended to the substance only when it is used in the manufacture of drug and not otherwise. No such evidence has been placed before us and we do not think that the decision cited is of direct relevance to the dispute before us. 12. In the result, the two appeals are rejected.
-
1985 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of 979 birds being treated as ‘D’ line only. (ii) Appeal No. 1378/80 (A) The penalty imposed on the appellants (M/s. BVH Limited) is set aside. Duty is to be assessed on the basis of the declared value. (iii) Appeal No. 1464/80 (A) The penalties imposed for misdeclaration of value as well as for ITC contravention imposed on M/s. BVH Limited are set aside. The appellants are declared entitled to the refund of excess duty collected, on assessment of duty being done on the basis of declared value. (iv) Appeal No. 1465/80 (A) The penalty imposed under Section 112 on M/s. BVH Limited had been remitted by the Board itself. It is ordered that they are entitled to refund of the excess duty collected on assessment being done on the basis of the declared value. 23. In all the appeals we further hold that debit in the respective licences should also have been on the basis of the declared values. 24. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms, with consequential relief.
-
1985 (3) TMI 254 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... manufacture of analgin but indirectly. We see from “Merck Index” that a substance called “melubrin” is prepared by warming aminoantipyrine with sodium bisulfite in formaldehyde solution. Analgin is prepared by methylating the amino group of melubrin, then treating with formaldehyde sodium bisulfite solution. It is interesting to note that even the intermediate product “melubrin” is shown in the “Merck Index” as an antipyretic and analgesic. Analgin is also an antipyretic and analgesic. 5. Taking the cumulative effect of what is stated above, there is little doubt that sodium bisulphite qualifies for duty exemption as a drug intermediate in terms of Notification No. 55/75 read with 62/78. 6. In the result, we allow the appeals. The Assistant Collector shall grant consequential relief to the appellants to the extent the appellants satisfy him with evidence about the actual use of sodium bisulphite in the manufacture of the drug.
-
1985 (3) TMI 253 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n to ₹ 2,000/-. We, therefore, reduce this redemption fine to ₹ 2,000/- only. 18. Having regard to all the circumstances and our findings above, we partly accept the appeal and order as under - (i) The fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 1,94,014.29 seized from the factory store room shall remain as Rs. l.000/- (Rupees one thousand only). (ii) The fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 4,315.20 seized from the van and of goods valued at ₹ 1,36,049.80 from the premises outside the factory shall stand reduced from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 2,000,- (Rupees two thousand only). (iii) The penalty of ₹ 5,000/- imposed is set aside. 19. The excise authorities shall determine the correct assessable value of the goods for the purposes of excise duty as directed in the impugned order passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. 20. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT
Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 questioned
Held that:-The abolition of the posts and the declaration that the incumbents of those posts would cease to be holders of those posts under section 3 of the Ordinance being completed events, there is no question of their revival or the petitioners continuing to hold those posts any longer. The above contention has, therefore, to be rejected in the circumstances of this case. In view of what has been stated above it is not necessary to consider the contention of the petitioners that it was not open to the Government to issue one ordinance after another to keep alive the effect of the first ordinance as the first ordinance itself brought about the desired effect by section 3 thereof. Even if the other provisions of the Ordinance have ceased to be in force, there can be no constitutional difficulty arising therefrom because it is open to the State Government to create new posts in exercise of its powers under Article 162 of the Constitution as long as the field is not occupied by an Act of the Legislature or a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. petition dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 251 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... though separately charged, the rate of tax on gunny bags was taken to be the rate as applicable to the sale of rice. The facts found in the present case by the Board of Revenue also show that the supply of tins had an intimate connection with the supply of vegetable ghee as the assessee was not doing the business of empty tins at the relevant period and there could not have been any express or implied agreement to sell empty tins separately. In the facts and circumstances of this case there was one composite agreement to sell vegetable ghee in a tin and as such the view taken by the Board of Revenue is correct. In the result, it is held that on the facts and circumstances of the case the rate of tax on sale of tins which were sold filled with vanaspati ghee and for which separate charges were made in the bills, the rate of tax shall be 10 per cent. The reference is answered in the manner indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 250 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial judge, while issuing the rule, was admittedly satisfied on the prima facie case, otherwise he would not have issued a rule and perhaps he was also satisfied about the points of law as involved and as such, instead of the whole amount to be secured, he has directed some security to be furnished by way of a bank guarantee. Since we are bound by the observations in the Dunlop s case (1985) 1 SCC 260, we set aside that part of the learned Judge s order, whereby he has directed securing of the amount through the bank guarantee and instead, we order that the petitioner should furnish cash security for the amount, as indicated above. The application is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. Such security, as is directed to be furnished, be furnished by three weeks. Further, we keep it on record, that in case the writ petitioner succeeds, the respondents should refund the amount which will be deposited with them, now, with all due legal interest. Application allowed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 249 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Court in Rewa Coal Fields Ltd. (Misc. Petition No. 464 of 1972 decided on 4th May, 1979) on which reliance has been placed, this definition of raw material has been considered but that has been considered in respect of timber and cement with which we are not concerned in this case. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, there is no justification for the Sales Tax Officer to delete these articles including explosives from the category of raw materials in the registration certificate. 10.. The petition is allowed. The order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara, dated 30th December, 1982, deleting explosives and other articles from the category of raw materials specified in the registration certificate is hereby quashed and it is directed that the raw materials previously specified shall be included in the registration certificate. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1985 (3) TMI 248 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... contracts and upon hearing the parties dispose of the matters at an early date preferably within one month from the date of hearing of the cases. We direct the petitioners through their lawyers to appear before the Superintendent of Taxes, Silchar, on 27th May, 1985, and thereafter the Superintendent of Taxes, Silchar, shall hear and dispose of the cases preferably within a month therefrom or from the date of production of the contracts as the case may be. 9.. Before parting, we would like to state once again that while considering the moot question, the Superintendent of Taxes shall consider whether the price paid by the buyers was on the basis of the meat-content of the animal or the price was paid for purchasing live animals and, thereafter, determine whether the goods supplied fall in item No. 11 of Schedule III to the Act . 10.. In the result the petitions are accepted to the extent indicated above. However, we make no order as to costs. Send down the records forthwith.
-
1985 (3) TMI 247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion is whether posta-budi is a medicine or not. He contended that the Tribunal has not recorded any finding whether posta-budi is used as medicine and is commonly known as medicine or not. That not having been done by the Tribunal, it has not properly appreciated the facts of the case. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the revenue. The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that posta-budi is used as medicine. It has also relied on a book named Madan Pal Nighantu in which Posta-budi has been mentioned as a medicine. The said fact cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant for determining whether Posta-budi was used as medicine or not. In view of the aforesaid fact I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law and requires no interference by this Court. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 246 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sonable cause was shown by the assessee. Whether there was reasonable cause or not was a question of fact and the Tribunal held the cause sufficient as shown by the assessee and came to the conclusion that the imposition of penalty was wholly unwarranted in the facts of the case. It is relevant to state that the element of mens rea has to be determined while imposing penalty under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, inasmuch as the words used in section 10(d) is without reasonable cause . Since in the instant case guilty intention of the assessee has not been proved and the Tribunal has accepted the cause shown by the assessee, the Tribunal was wholly justified in knocking of the penalty imposed under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act. No other illegality or arbitrariness has been pointed out by the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.
-
1985 (3) TMI 245 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... holly uncalled for. The order passed by the Tribunal is a very cryptic order. In fact the judgment given by it is no judgment in the eye of law. In the hierarchy of the authorities provided under the statute the Tribunal is the highest and last fact-finding authority. It is supposed to apply its mind to the facts of the cases and pass a reasoned order. Findings based on no reason are no findings at all. Before parting with the cases I would like to express that the Tribunal should not pass such orders and the tendency on the part of the Tribunal in disposing of appeals in such manner should be deprecated. In the result the revisions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are quashed and it is directed to decide the appeals afresh and record its own reasons in support of the findings arrived at. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Tribunal concerned as contemplated under section 11(8) of the Act.
-
1985 (3) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the present case, no Sales Tax Officer had any such jurisdiction with the result that even on that ground the impugned order annexure H cannot be sustained. The Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad, or Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Flying Squad, in our opinion, does not have the implied authority to act as Sales Tax Officer or Assistant Sales Tax Officer in a particular circle unless be is so appointed or powers are delegated to him to that effect while working with the flying squad. To elucidate this point further a District judge who is appointed as the Registrar or Additional Registrar of the High Court, during his tenure on that post cannot exercise the powers of a District Judge even though his substantive post is that of a District Judge. 29.. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed with no order as to costs. The impugned orders annexure H and annexure I are quashed and set aside. The amount of security deposit, on verification, be returned to the petitioner.
-
1985 (3) TMI 243 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... should be recovered by the revenue unless recovery proceedings themselves are independently shown to be vitiated or illegal in any manner. This has not been urged or proved in this case. It is for the revenue to decide, in which form or by which mode of recovery, it will realise the tax due to it as per the statute. But, we dare say that the circumstances pointed out by the petitioner s counsel as also Mr. Rajasekharan Nair are worthy of consideration by the (Government and) revenue, if they are inclined to consider the petitioner s case sympathetically. We should make it clear that it is not within our province to consider all such matters. It is entirely a matter to be considered by the Government or revenue. We leave it there. 8.. No other point was argued by the petitioner s counsel. 9.. The original petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to counsel for the parties, on usual terms. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 242 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... puty Commissioner of Sales Tax committed a mistake. 11.. As regards mahua and amchur transaction, after all, it was open to the authorities to accept the explanation or not to accept it. If it was considered that part of the explanation was good enough to be accepted, no grievance could be made in a writ petition under article 226. 12.. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, the orders passed by the Sales Tax Officer on 31st March, 1981, and by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on 27th February, 1982, are hereby quashed and it is directed that the Sales Tax Officer in the light of the discussion above will pass a fresh order and assess the liability of tax of the petitioner excluding the tax on chironji and also will pass an appropriate order of penalty on the quantum of tax which may be found payable by the assessee. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.
-
1985 (3) TMI 241 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mendment made to section 35(1) the Division Bench has pointed out the effect of retrospective operation. In fact the learned Judges have upheld the action. In view of the discussion of the legal position, the general discussion therein is of little assistance to the petitioner. Equally the ratio in H.R. Industries case AIR 1959 Ker 279 is also not directly applicable to the facts in this case. Even the decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader are of little assistance to the point in issue and therefore they need not be discussed, except Associated Cement Co. Ltd. s case 1981 48 STC 466 (SC) which was already considered and followed. In view of the above discussion, the necessary conclusion is that the impugned order is within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority and is not barred by limitation and therefore the authorities below have rightly repelled the contentions. The revision is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. Petition dismissed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 240 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as to whether issuance of notice under section 21 of the Act was called for in the circumstances of the case or not has decided the case on merit as if the proceedings arose out of original assessment. The controversy involved in the instant cases was not as to whether the goods manufactured by the assessee were timber products or electrical goods but was whether on the facts of the case proceedings under section 21 could be initiated against the assessee or not. No material has been brought on record except this that the assessing authority changed his opinion that the goods manufactured by the assessee were electrical goods and not timber products. It has not been disputed before me by the standing counsel that proceedings under section 21 of the Act cannot be initiated by mere change of opinion. In view of the aforesaid fact the revisions succeed and are allowed. The orders passed by the Tribunal are quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1985 (3) TMI 239 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... properly become the subject of sale and that neither the ownership of the materials nor the value of the skill and labour as compared with the value of the materials is conclusive although such matters may, in the circumstances of a particular case, be taken into consideration to determine whether the contract was in substance one for work and labour or one for the sale. Applying the test laid down by the Supreme Court, to the contracts entered into by the assessee with the customers in these cases, it is seen that the main object of the contract entered into by the assessee was not the transfer of floor beams, trusses and purlins and their delivery of possession as chattel to the customers. Under those circumstances, the turnover of Rs. 13,339.60 and Rs. 1,24,910.58 ought not to have been included in the taxable turnover of the assessee for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 respectively. We, therefore, allow the revision petitions. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
