|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 181 Records
-
1988 (10) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay application and appeal remanded ... ... ... ... ..... e learned Advocate, for consideration of the Stay Application and passing fresh orders. 3. emsp We have perused the documents and considered the arguments of both sides. It appears that the Collector due to some reason overlooked the Stay Application completely and failed to pass proper orders on the same. Therefore the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, and consequently cannot be sustained. We set it aside and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for fresh decision which should include consideration of the Stay Application (including a hearing if asked for) and then pass fresh orders under the law. 4. Shri Gujral requests for early decision by the Collector for which he seeks a direction. We do not feel that such a direction is necessary. The Collector is expected to take as prompt action as possible. 5. The Stay Application and the appeal are thus being allowed by way of remand. 6. Pronounced in open court.
-
1988 (10) TMI 143 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
manufacture or job work ... ... ... ... ..... the applicants is ldquo manufacture rdquo within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act and in that context whether they (the applicants) are manufacturers of PVC coated galvanised steel wires. It cannot, therefore, be said that the new grounds are completely outside the purview of the subject-matter which was before the Collector. Viewed from this angle, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 1980 (126) ITR 251 should not stand in the way of allowing these new grounds to be raised before this Tribunal. 6. In the light of the above discussions, we reject the contentions of the learned DR and allow this Misc. Application. 7. emsp While agreeing with the conclusion I would like to make it clear that whatever has been said in paragraph 2 and onwards while considering the question as to whether the amendment should be allowed or not, will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits. 8. I agree.
-
1988 (10) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Related person ... ... ... ... ..... use Notice also proposed to restore the Assistant Collector rsquo s order. For correcting the impression of the lower authorities, we reiterate that if normal price of the goods was ascertainable independently of the sales made to the lsquo related person rsquo , then all the removals would have to be assessed at that normal price and, if the acceptable sales were really sales in retail only, even then the assessee would be entitled to reduction of reasonable sale expenses under Rule 6(a)/(c) of the Valuation Rules. 10. In the result, we set aside the impugned Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-Appeal and remand the matter to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision in accordance with law and judgments of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. Needless to say, the Assistant Collector should arrive at the fresh decision after ascertaining, as far as possible at this late stage after the lapse of nearly 12 years, the correct facts and after a due hearing to the Respondent.
-
1988 (10) TMI 141 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 7.5 is acceptable to the Customs and the rational for the difference has not changed between 1985-87 as explained by the suppliers, we hold that correct basis for arriving at the assessable value should be the price differential between the bigger lots and smaller lots as in 1985. We find that the price for smaller lots has increased from 52.50 to 56.35 and it is quite acceptable that the monetary value of the factors responsible for the price differential as explained by the suppliers would have also increased in the same proportion. We, therefore, allow abatement of DM 7.5 x 56.35/52.50 from the value of smaller lots as adopted by the lower authority for arriving at the assessable value under Rule 3(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules framed under Section 14 read with Section 156 of the Customs Act, 1962 permitting the arriving at the assessable value based on the price of like goods imported. The appeal is thus partially allowed in the above terms with consequential relief.
-
1988 (10) TMI 140 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Gold Control Licence ... ... ... ... ..... As a matter of fact, the show cause notice issued was to that effect. The application for licence was made before the expiry of two years after the goldsmith certificate was issued. In the said circumstances, the applicant would not qualify for a licence under the said clause. Since the application was made on two grounds, the department was duty bound to consider both the grounds. 9. emsp As stated earlier both the authorities below did not consider the first ground, namely the experience alleged by the applicant. Therefore, the orders passed by the authorities below are required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded for fresh consideration. 10. emsp Accordingly while allowing this appeal and setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below, we remand the matter to the Deputy Collector to consider the application afresh in the light of the observations made in this order as well as the various decisions governing the issue of granting of licence.
-
1988 (10) TMI 139 - CEGAT, BOMBAY
Confiscation illegal and bad in law ... ... ... ... ..... onfiscation of primary gold, weighing 1440.900 gms and direct that the same shall be returned to the appellant. The appellant shall convert the primary gold into ornaments within a month after release of the primary gold. 8. The only other aspect that remains for consideration is the imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant. As has been stated earlier we are unable to accept the contention that there was only a technical offence of not maintaining the statutory record, being the college going boy. From the records it is clear that as many as 25 entries were kept blank. If the figures given by the appellant are to be accepted then the physical stock falls short of the stock mentioned in the statutory records. Taking all aspects into consideration we reduce the penalty from Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). The appellant be granted consequential relief by way of refund of the excess penalty, if paid.
-
1988 (10) TMI 138 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... No doubt, the system in its broad sense is a warning system for preventing explosion in the boiler or furnace thereto yet this particular system i.e. flame sensing system is an apparatus for measuring the intensity of flame via ultra violet rays radiated by flame. If the intensity of the flame goes down below a certain level the system gives the warning of that and sets in reaction certain relays which trips off the fuel supply to system. This is very clear from the extract of the manual of the supplier set out above only when the electrical pulses have interval of time greater than 2 seconds which is considered to be the dangerous level, the automatic tripping system operates shutting off fuel supply to the boiler. We, therefore, allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. 11. In so far as assessment of lens in appeal No. C/2031 is concerned, we reject the appeal in respect of that item i.e. lens as not pressed. 12. Appeals disposed of in the above terms.
-
1988 (10) TMI 137 - CEGAT , NEW DELHI
Exemption Notification ... ... ... ... ..... effect that the grant of set off or reduction in duty would be dependent on Rule 56-A procedure being followed. In the absence of such a mandatory condition, in the notification, the Collector cannot insist on the respondents observing Rule 56-A procedure. 4. emsp The respondents cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M/s. Kiran Spinning Mills - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.). The ratio of this judgment is that it is not enough if two products have a distinct commercial nomenclature the tariff entry or sub-entry should also recognise them as two different products. This judgment would be relevant if the respondents had come up in appeal or if they had filed a cross-appeal. In that event, they could have made a claim for even greater relief than what was given to them by the Collector (Appeals). But the respondents have done no such thing. It is the Department which is in appeal before us. 5. emsp Since we find no substance in the department rsquo s appeal, we dismiss it.
-
1988 (10) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the learned counsel for the appellants that the demand was time barred and hold that the extended period of 5 years for raising the demand was available to the Department as the appellants M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. was guilty of intentionally suppressing the material facts. In this view of the matter we are supported by the decisions rendered by this Tribunal in the case of Kerala State Detergents and Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1987 (27) E.L.T. 323 and Aims Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 1988 (36) 151. 23. emsp In the result we dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. The appeal filed by the department is allowed and that part of the impugned order whereby the Collector (Appeals) had modified the order of the Assistant Collector to the effect that interest accruing on the advances made by M/s. Ponds (I) Ltd. should not be included while arriving at the assessable value is set aside and the order of the Assistant Collector is restored.
-
1988 (10) TMI 135 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Value of clearances ... ... ... ... ..... that the very name of this variety of paper ( ldquo ledger paper rdquo ) indicates that its use is for writing and printing only. We hold accordingly. 39. The next and final question is whether art board or chromo board would be eligible for exemption under notification No. 25/84. A perusal of the second proviso to the notification shows that the exclusion provided in this proviso is only in respect of coated paper. Coated board is not mentioned in the same. Therefore, we accept the pleas of the appellants in this regard and hold that art board/chromo board qualify for the exemption. 40. As a result we allow the appeal in respect of broke holding that it is not includible in the computation of clearances of paper and paper board for purposes of notification No. 25/84 as amended. We allow the appeal in respect of ledger paper and art board/chromo board. We reject the arguments of the appellants in respect of art paper/chromo paper. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the petitioner can be said to have effected entry of the goods in the local area and thereby made it liable for payment of entry tax under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976?
Held that:- The costs of materials so supplied and consumed in the construction work have been deducted from the final bill of the petitioner, showing that there was sale of those materials. If the department had not supplied those materials, the petitioner would have purchased the same from the market. This also is clear from the explanation (a)(ii) to definition of "sale" in section 2(n) of Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act providing that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, 1930, a sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have taken place in the State wherever the contract of sale or purchase might have been made, if the goods are within State and in the case of unascertained or future goods, at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale or purchase by the seller or by the purchaser, whether the assent of the other party is prior or subsequent to such appropriation of contract of sale.
-
1988 (10) TMI 105 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... ies or the individuals. Even giving that latitude, there must be some way or attempt to explain the cause for such delay. As stated from the facts narrated herein before there is no sufficient cause to explain the delay. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. This is a three Bench decision. The earlier decision of the Supreme Court is a two judges Bench decision and even in the case of Mst. Katiji Bibi the Supreme Court did not overrule its earlier view in the case of Ram La/ v. Rewa Coal Fields reported in 1962 SC 361. Taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the applicant was not prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is rejected. 5. Since we have rejected the applicant rsquo s request for condonation of delay the appeal is also dismissed being hit by limitation and we are not going into the merits of the same.
-
1988 (10) TMI 100 - ITAT MADRAS-C
... ...
... ... ..... ith the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 120 ITR 1. In this view of the matter I am not going into the third alternative submission put forward by the learned counsel for the assessee on the basis of the Department s contention, namely, that only a tax based penalty could be levied for these years, as the said question is purely academic. 19. Regarding the asst. yr. 1970-71, I hold that the ITO had valid jurisdiction to levy the penalty as the return for this year was originally filed by the appellant on 17th Nov., 1972, only. On the authority of the two decisions in 120 ITR 1 and 100 ITR 170, I hold that the penalty of Rs. 20,000 levied by the ITO is correct and that no relief is due to the appellant in the quantum of penalty. Accordingly, I confirm the penalty levied by the ITO for this pear. 20. In the result, the appeals for the first five years in ITA Nos. 511 to 515 (Mds)/87 are allowed, while the appeal for the asst. yr. 1970-71 in ITA No. 516/Mds/87 is dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 98 - ITAT MADRAS-B
... ...
... ... ..... ion work such as dams, tunnels, canal, etc. (Empahsis supplied). The description given under this head is merely illustrative as is indicated by the use of expression such as and etc . There is sufficient material upon which the Tribunal could come to the conclusion that the drilling equipment used by the assessee is employed in heavy construction works. No material has been placed by the Revenue to take a contrary view. We accordingly uphold the Tribunal s view that the rig and compressor used by the assessee for the purpose of drilling answers the depreciation of item D(4) in Appendix-I, Part I, and consequently the assessee would be entitled to claimed depreciation at 30 percent. We, accordingly, answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the aforesaid discussion also, it is clear that allowance of depreciation at 30 per cent was in order on merits. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 95 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... law applicable, whether we have powers to entertain the request for condonation of delay. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to go into the facts in the transferee s case. Since we have held we have no powers to condone delay in the present case, the appeal of the transferor has to be dismissed as barred by limitation. In the view that we have taken, we do not go into the merits of the reasons which caused the delay. Suffice it to say that arguments that hardship may result in genuine cases if such an interpretation of law is taken were adduced before the High Court of Delhi in the case of Deena Dayal Goyal and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B. Subba Rao but their Lordships held, after a consideration of the same, that the conclusion arrived at that the Tribunal did not have powers to condone delay, could not be deviated from in the light of the language of the statute as obtaining. 17. The result is the appeal is dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.
-
1988 (10) TMI 94 - ITAT MADRAS-B
Assessment Year, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... fact there being nothing to throw discredit thereon, cannot be disregarded. At this stage we recall the observations of Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions 1947 2 All ER 372 at 374 referred to by the Madras High Court with explicit approval in P.K. Kalasami Nadar v. CIT 1962 46 ITR 1056 in regard to the degree of cogency which the evidence must reach to help the discharge of burden of an issue in a civil case That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the Tribunal can say We think it more probable than not , the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not. Applying this test which we consider apposite, we find that in the present case the probabilities must be said to be equal and, hence, we have to hold that the assessee has not discharged the burden. It will follow that the assessment must be upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT MADRAS-A
... ...
... ... ..... ive consideration the assessee concluded that it had become difficult or impossible of recovery. At the same time, the assessee had retained some ray of hope, however dim it may be, in respect of the sum of Rs. 3,60,000 promised to be paid in terms of the compromise decree. That was the reason why the assessee wrote off only the balance. Taking all the facts into consideration it is very clear that what was written off was a business loss and the loss occurred in the year in which it was written off because of the circumstances surrounding the compromise decree. From any point of view, either as a business loss or as a bad debt, we are satisfied that the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below on this point and direct the ITO to recompute the total income after allowing the deduction of Rs. 2,93,359. The ITO is also authorised to amend the assessment of the partners as a consequence. 5. The appeal is allowed.
-
1988 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... egarding the addition of Rs. 7,000 belonging to the wife Smt. Suman, it appears as per the order of the AAC dt. 19th Dec., 1985, has been added in her hands, with which fact there appears very little doubt, as the order of the AAC is on record and apparently the decision has been accepted by the Revenue. However, since the Revenue was not in a position to controvert it otherwise, but at the same time they being unable to provide an emphatic answer, we would remand this issue back to the files of ITO with the direction, that, in case the decision of the AAC had been and no second appeal was preferred, then no part of the amount shall be added in the assessee s hands. 6. The last of the issue is on charge of interest under s. 139(8) and under ss. 215 and 217. The plea of bona fide belief was raised, which to our mind, could be considered by the ITO if the waiver petition is filed before him. 7. In the result, the appeal shall be treated as allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
1988 (10) TMI 84 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... nation even stating therein that it was only for clarification. The Board had issued a Circular No. 402 dt. 1st Nov., 1984 wherein also it was opined by them that However, with a view to avoiding controversy and litigation in the matter, it is desirable that orders under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, are passed, as far as possible, within two years of the date of the order sought to be revised in cases where the order sought to be revised was passed before 1st Oct., 1984. This also goes to indicate that even the Board seems doubtful as the retrospective application of the explanation. We are, therefore, convinced that the Commissioner could not have obtained jurisdiction after 27th June, 1986 under s. 263 and accordingly his order is clearly barred by time. Therefore, on the legality aspect of jurisdiction of the CIT s order under s. 263, we have come to hold that it is clearly barred by time and therefore we set aside his order. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
-
1988 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT HYDERABAD-B
... ...
... ... ..... rt of the assessee and unless and until the assessee succeeds in establishing that the said admission made by him is wrong he cannot be permitted to revise this estimated value in the return. After hearing both sides we are of the view that order rendered by the AAC, Anantapur appears to be in consonance with judgments of Gujarat High Court as well as that of the Special Bench of the Delhi Tribunal adverted to supra. The proposition of the learned Advocate for the assessee that the assessee is not bound by the returned value is an extra proposition to which we cannot subscribe. 8. We, therefore, held that the learned AAC is perfectly justified in ordering the valuation of the property to be made by following the method evolved for r. 1BB for valuing the residential property. We, therefore, find no substance in the Department appeals or in the cross objection filed by the assessee. In the result both Department appeals as well as cross objections by the assessee are dismissed.
........
|
