|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 103 Records
-
1980 (5) TMI 43 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Sulphur Dioxide gas is classifiable under Item 68 ... ... ... ... ..... s in question does not fall under Item 1 to 67 it would rightly be classifiable under the residuary Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 5. The petitioners have also contended that the gas in question in the nature of intermediate goods obtained in the manufacture of sugar and should, therefore, be eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 118/75-Central Excises, dated 1-3-75 which exempts intermediate goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Government, however, observe that the gas in question is used as an aid in the manufacture of sugar and sugar is not actually produced from out of the gas in question. In the circumstances the said gas- cannot be treated as intermediate goods for the purpose of Notification No. 118/75-Central Excises. 6. In view of the above the order-in-appeal which is correct in law does not warrant interference. The Revision Application is accordingly rejected.
-
1980 (5) TMI 42 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ile computing the period of limitation, the date on which the original order was received by the petitioners is to he excluded as laid down in section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore the petitioners appeal could not he said to be time barred, even if he received the order-in-original on 7-12-77 as stated in the order-in-appeal. Government accordingly set aside the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and direct that the appeal be disposed of de novo on merits after due compliance with the principles of natural justice.
-
1980 (5) TMI 41 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Mica - Cleaning, cutting, grading etc., are not process of manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... 5. The Government of India thus observe that mica is generally sold in the market in block form commonly known as block mica. It does not change its character, quality and properties when it is cleaned, cut or graded. The Government consider that this treatment for purposes of marketing does not constitute a process of Manufacture as no new product as such thereby comes into existence. The case of fabricated mica which paid customs duty on export is, however, different as it involves some process of fabrication and/or of punching which would constitute manufacture . 6. In view of the above findings, the revision application is allowed only in respect of block mica. With that there is no need to go into the applicant s other point that during the material period the applicant s factory was employing less than 99 workers and, therefore, fall outside the purview of Item 68 Central Excise Tariff inasmuch as the dispute before the lower authorities had not centred on this point.
-
1980 (5) TMI 40 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Penalty not imposable, if lapse is pointed out by the assessee himself ... ... ... ... ..... earance of the goods, and the omision was promptly brought to the notice of the authority by the petitioners themselves. The duty was also debited in the PLA without much delay. 3. Government find force in the petitioners plea that they had no intention to violate the law. The lapse was brought to the authorities notice by the petitioners themselves for which reason no mens rea can be alleged against the petitioners. 4. In view of the above, Government allow the petitioners plea for condoning the lapse, and accordingly remit the penalty.
-
1980 (5) TMI 39 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Review powers - Section 35A - Scope ... ... ... ... ..... , Calcutta reported in 1979 ELT J 569) Government have held that the power of review under section 35A of the Act can be exercised even at the instance of an assesse who has not filed an appeal. The review powers conferred are of wide amplitude and can be exercised in favour of the revenue as well as the assessee in order to correct any error or illegality committed by the subordinate authorities. This case is accordingly remanded back to the Board with directions that the petition filed by the petitioners under section 35A of the Act be taken on record and examined on merits. 3. The revision application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1980 (5) TMI 38 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Price lists - Assessment - Connotation of - Valuation - Related person/favoured buyer - Writ Jurisdiction
-
1980 (5) TMI 37 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
`Manufacture’ and `produce’ - Asbestos fibre - Legislature’s interpretation - Significance - Refund - Central Excise - Collection of duty from the consignee - Validity - Appeal to Supreme Court
-
1980 (5) TMI 36 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dutiability of excisable goods when not removed from the place of manufacture - Place of issue - Connotation of
-
1980 (5) TMI 35 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Valuation - When sales are partly made to wholesale buyers at arms length ... ... ... ... ..... e which included element of frieght and other manufacturing expenses could not truly represent the assessable value under Sec. 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 3. Government observe that in the case of Sri A.K. Roy and others v. M/s. Voltas Ltd., the Supreme Court in their judgment dated 1-12-1972 have held that once wholesale dealings at arms length are established the determination of the wholesales cash price for the purpose of Sec. 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 may not depend upon the number of such wholesale dealings. 4. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the present case Government hold that the Ex-factory wholesale cash price of the goods in question which is charged from wholesale buyers others than distributors and which is available should form the basis for determining the assessable value of the said goods. 5. In view of the above, Government of India set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the Revision Application accordingly.
-
1980 (5) TMI 34 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Return of goods for reprocessing - Difference between variety ... ... ... ... ..... l-C, Central Excise Tariff. Within this item there are no sub-items. 4. Government also note that the petitioners other contention that for commodities like Tea, Mineral Oils etc. the practice of the department in dying the refund so long as the goods are reprocessing into goods of the same class i.e. Tea is reprocessed into Tea etc. has not been controverted by the Appellate Collector. Government also note that they limited the refund claim to the duty paid on reprocessed goods, it being the lesser of the two amounts. 5. Government see considerable force in the petitioner s submissions and consider that it would be against the letter as well as spirit of Rule 173L if the petitioners request for avoidance of double payment of duty on goods brought beck for processing and duty cleared after reprocessing were not acceeded to on the ground that the goods as brought back and as subsequently cleared did not belong to the same class. The revision application is therefore allowed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 33 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Printed Cartons are products of packaging - Products of printing industry - Meaning ... ... ... ... ..... pages 130-156 of the encyclopaedia of HOW IT S MADE edited by Donald Clarke (Published by Marshall Cavandish, London and New York, -1978), wherein it is mentioned that Apart from the obvious books, magazines and newspapers, the products of the printing industry are many and diverse. They include posters, bank notes, telephone directories, postage stamps, record sleeves, wallpapers, cartons, plastic containers and many other forms of packaging . Government observe that the passing reference is not explained further with any rationale to lead to any firm conclusion on the issue before the Government and is, in any case, not of much help to the party, even more so in view of what is stated in para 4 above. 7. In view of the above, Government hold that the printed cartons manufactured by the party are classifiable as products of the packaging industry and thereby restore the order-in-original, dated 18-1-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. IX, Bombay.
-
1980 (5) TMI 32 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Manufacture - Acquittal - Offence not proved - Benefit of doubt ... ... ... ... ..... the wife of the foreman of the factory. The defence in the case is that the goods found in his house were duty paid. Ex. D-1, the credit bill, shows that duty has been paid on the stock. It is in evidence of P.W. 2 that there is no prohibition to take duty paid goods from the licensed premises to any non-licensed premises. But then he later stated that even for duty paid goods, repacking in non-licensed premises is prohibited and added that there is no clear order about it. Therefore, a doubt arises as to whether the accused was having these duty paid goods in his house and was repacking them on account of the fact that they were drenched. The prosecution has not ruled out that possibility and therefore the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. In that view, the prosecution has not proved the offences with which the accused is charged. The judgment of the Magistrate acquitting the accused is confirmed though not for the reasons stated by him. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT
Fibre - Tyre Cord Fabric - Fabrics - Classification of goods - Interpretation of Statute - Words and expressions - Connotation of words and phrases
-
1980 (5) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the turnover of pineapple fruit purchased for preparing pineapple slices for sale in sealed cans is not covered by Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963?
Held that:- When pineapple fruit is processed into pineapple slices for the purpose of being sold in sealed cans there is no consumption of the original pineapple fruit for the purpose of manufacture. The case does not fall within Section 5-A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The High Court is right in the view taken by it. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (5) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cash System, Income Tax, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... on and the interest was rightly forgone by it. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,24,000 which was added by the ITO as interest during the accounting year on the amount due from Shri Bedi. In the view we have taken above, it is patent that the decision of the Bombay High Court in Confinance Ltd. s case 1973 89 ITR 292 clearly runs counter to the Supreme Court decisions and earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court and does not lay down the correct law and we dissent from the same. None of the Supreme Court decisions referred to by us was brought to the notice of the learned judges deciding that case. The decision of the Bombay High Court in H. M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. s case 1960 39 ITR 706 was noticed, but in spite of that, a different view was taken by them. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, but make no order as to costs. B. S. DHILLON J.--I agree.
-
1980 (5) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... rn on the last day of the default and hence the default had not lasted for a month for the purpose of levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed on such an assessee. In this connection it is to be mentioned that the expression month is not defined in the I.T. Act, 1961. The expression month has been used in different contexts in different sections of the I.T. Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that where month is not defined, we should go by the expression used under s. 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and month should be the English calendar month. In this respect we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. In that view of the matter, the question referred to this court will be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party to pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (5) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... amount held by the society in the Employees Provident Fund. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the balance of the Employees Provident Fund remained invested in the assessee s business and continued to form part of its assets. The assessee, therefore, did not create an Employees Provident Fund of the nature specified in s. 63. Accordingly, it did not, under s. 63 of the Act, become liable to make any contribution to the fund of the nature established by it. Since the expenditure in question, incurred by the assessee, is not referable to the liability accruing under s. 63 of the U.P. Co-op. Societies Act, the same cannot be said to have been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee s business and it does not, in our opinion, qualify for deduction under s. 37 of the I.T. Act. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the department. The Commissioner shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 250.
-
1980 (5) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his court held that the amount of remuneration paid to the assessee was relatable to the shares held by the family and not on account of the personal qualifications, even though he rendered some service of a general nature. Such is not the position in this year. For, the finding of the Tribunal clearly establishes that the payment was for special services rendered and on account of qualification, experience and technical knowledge which the assessee possessed. Thus, the case falls in line with Raj Kumar Hukam Chand s case 1970 78 ITR 33 (SC), and we must hold that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the amount in question was not exigible to tax in the hands of the HUF. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. This order will govern I.T.R. No. 913 of 1978, Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur v. Sri Partap Veer Kakkar, Ghaziabad.
-
1980 (5) TMI 25 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Income, Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... r also gives reasons why Prabhudayal could not be held to be the benamidar of Radhakishan, namely, that he could devote time his disproportionate profit sharing ratio to capital was immaterial that a retired partner was free to leave his interest in the firm unwithdrawn, etc., and on this basis there was the resultant finding that Prabhudayal was not a benamidar of the assessee. This finding is a finding of fact and consequently final and this court has no jurisdiction to decide its correctness except by reference to the question about the validity of the finding on the ground of being not based on evidence, which has not been done in the instant case. That finding having been final, the justification for deletion becomes obvious. The question referred has, therefore, to be answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. D. PATHAK, ACTG. C. J.-I agree.
-
1980 (5) TMI 24 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ambiguity, Business ... ... ... ... ..... the provisions of s. 40A(2)(a). We entirely agree with the view taken in T. T. Pvt. Ltd. s case 1980 121 1TR 551 (Car). It may be observed that the provisions of s. 40A(2)(a) of the Act are wide enough to cover the cases where payment is made in respect of the expenditure to any person referred in cl. (b) of that section, if the ITO is of the opinion that such expenditure is excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment is made or the legitimate needs of the business or profession of the assessee or the benefit derived by or accruing to him therefrom, is excessive. Sub-section (2)(b) of s. 40A defines the persons, and includes the assessee as an individual, as a company or firm consisting of persons or HUF. For the reasons recorded above, the questions of law referred to us in both these references are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, with costs.
|
