|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 235 Records
-
1981 (1) TMI 255
The appeal by Garg Sugar Industries against the Collector's order for duty on Khandsari sugar cleared after the exemption period was allowed. The Board set aside the order citing a previous decision and a High Court judgment stating that goods manufactured during an exempted period are exempt from duty even if cleared later.
-
1981 (1) TMI 254
The appeal was filed by M/s. National Paper Products, Virudhunagar against the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Sivakasi's order classifying their product. The issue was whether Hessian-lined paper should be classified under Tariff Item 17(2) or Tariff Item 22(A) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Appellate Collector remanded the case for reconsideration based on a Government order classifying similar products under Tariff Item 22(A).
-
1981 (1) TMI 253
The Central Board of Excise & Customs overturned the Collector's order to confiscate Indian currency worth Rs. 2 lakhs, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove it was proceeds from smuggled goods. The currency was ordered to be released. (Case citation: 1981 (1) TMI 253 - Central Board of Excise & Customs)
-
1981 (1) TMI 252
Issues:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty on the manufacture and removal of aluminium circles.
2. Seizure of aluminium circles by Central Excise Officers.
3. Appeal against the order of the Dy. Collector of Central Excise.
4. Show cause notice issued to the appellants.
5. Adjudication proceedings before the Collector.
6. Analysis of samples by the National Test House.
7. Appeal before the Board against the demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Collector.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of evading Central Excise duty on the manufacture and removal of aluminium circles exceeding 1.22 m.m. thickness without payment. The Central Excise Officers seized aluminium circles during a factory visit, leading to the demand for duty and penal action by the Dy. Collector of Central Excise.
2. The appellants appealed against the Dy. Collector's order, which was quashed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued to the appellants, initiating adjudication proceedings before the Collector.
3. During the adjudication proceedings, the appellants contended that the seized samples were not representative, emphasizing a "Deep Drawing Process" that affected the thickness of the circles. Samples were sent to the National Test House (NTH) for analysis, which revealed varying thickness due to the manufacturing process.
4. The Collector determined the duty demand for a specific period, considering the appellants' contentions and previous orders. The duty was demanded on the aluminium circles, and a significant penalty was imposed under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. The appellants appealed to the Board, presenting arguments supported by experiments and certificates to demonstrate the variation in thickness due to manufacturing processes. They highlighted discrepancies in the Collector's findings and the lack of concrete evidence to sustain the duty demand.
6. The Board acknowledged the appellants' submissions regarding the manufacturing process's impact on thickness and criticized the Collector's reliance on presumptions without substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and the imposed penalty.
7. The Board expressed concern over the excessive penalty imposed, emphasizing the need for caution and circumspection in applying Rule 173-Q. The penalty was deemed unwarranted and overturned, leading to the success of the appeal in full.
-
1981 (1) TMI 251
Whether or not the documents demanded by the detenu were relevant was decided not by the Minister who was the detaining authority but by the Secretary?
Held that:- it is absolutely clear to us that whether the documents concerned are referred to, relied upon or taken into consideration by the detaining authority they have to be supplied to the detenu as part of the grounds so as to enable the detenu to make an effective representation immediately on receiving the grounds of detention. This not having been done in the present case the continued detention of the petitioner must be held to be void.
The representation made by the detenu on 3-10-1980 has been rejected on 14-10-1980 not by the Home Minister but by the Secretary, thus, the representation has been rejected by an authority which had no jurisdiction at all to consider or pass any orders on the representation of the detenu. Allow this petition and direct the detenu to be released
-
1981 (1) TMI 250
Whether Sec. 18-AA excludes natural justice by necessary implication?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. Neither Sec. 18-F of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act nor Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act, by itself, excludes natural justice. The exclusion of natural justice, where such exclusion is not express, has to be implied by reference to the subject, the statute and the statutory situation. Where an express provision in the statute itself provides for a post decisional hearing the other provisions of the statute will have to be read in the light of such provision and the provision for post decisional hearing may then clinch the issue where pre-decisional natural justice appears to be excluded on the other terms of the statute. That a post-decisional hearing may also be had by the terms of Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act may not necessarily help in the interpretation of the provisions of the statute concerned. On the other hand even the general provision contained in Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act may be sufficient to so interpret the terms of a given statute as to exclude natural justice. As I said it depends on the subject, statute and the statutory situation.
Therefore, satisfied that the principles of natural justice are not attracted to the situations contemplated by Sec. 18-AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act.
-
1981 (1) TMI 249
Orders of acquittal - allegation of murder.
Held that:- Partly allow this appeal by the State, set aside the acquittal of Wassan Singh and Mukhtar Singh accused (respondents) and convict them under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code for the murder of Hazara Singh deceased and sentence each of them to imprisonment for life. We would, however, accord the benefit of doubt to the rest of the accused (respondents) and maintain their acquittal on all the counts. Wasson Singh and Mukhtar Singh shall surrender to their bail-bonds to serve out the sentences inflicted on them.
-
1981 (1) TMI 248
The High Court of Madras dismissed a tax revision case against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order, stating that the sale of appalams is subject to an 8% tax under item 103 of the First Schedule as they are preparations of cereals. The case was filed by a manufacturer of appalams named "Ammami Appalam."
-
1981 (1) TMI 247
The High Court of Madras ruled that absorbent cotton wool produced by the petitioner is classified as "surgical dressing" under item 95 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The product does not fall under item 2 of the Second Schedule as it has undergone manufacturing processes. The Court dismissed the tax revision case.
-
1981 (1) TMI 246
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act regarding registration renewal fees.
2. Validity of penalty imposed under section 22(2) of the Act for collecting sales tax without renewal of registration.
3. Analysis of Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 in relation to registration renewal.
Interpretation of Section 21:
The case involved a petition challenging the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the non-renewal of registration under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The respondent, a registered dealer, failed to remit the renewal fee from the assessment year 1974-75 onwards. The court examined Section 21 of the Act, emphasizing that a dealer remains registered until cancellation, and non-payment of renewal fee does not automatically render the dealer unregistered. The court highlighted the provision that a dealer ceases to be liable for the fee if business ceases and notice is given, unless business resumes. This interpretation was crucial in determining the respondent's registration status.
Validity of Penalty Imposed:
The department imposed a penalty under section 22(2) of the Act for collecting sales tax without being a registered dealer. However, the court held that once registration is granted and renewal fees are paid, the dealer remains registered until cancellation. The court emphasized that the department cannot treat a dealer as unregistered solely due to non-renewal of fees, especially when fees for multiple years were paid subsequently. The court found that the penalty imposed was not justified under the Act, leading to the dismissal of the tax revision case.
Analysis of Rule 24:
In analyzing Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, the court highlighted the requirement for dealers to submit renewal applications and pay fees annually. The rule specified that even a letter confirming no changes suffices for renewal. The court noted the alignment of Rule 24 with Section 21(7) of the Act, emphasizing that once fees are accepted for renewal, the department cannot penalize the dealer for non-renewal. This analysis reinforced the court's decision to uphold the Tribunal's order and dismiss the tax revision case.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal obligations regarding registration renewal fees under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, emphasizing that non-payment does not automatically render a dealer unregistered. The court's interpretation of statutory provisions and rules played a crucial role in determining the validity of the penalty imposed, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the case.
-
1981 (1) TMI 245
Issues:
Assessment under Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1962-63, reassessment notice for unaccounted turnover, validity of reassessment proceedings, limitation period for reassessment.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court involved a case where the assessee was initially assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1962-63. Subsequently, it was discovered that a certain turnover was not covered by valid C forms and was therefore liable to be taxed at 7 per cent. A reassessment notice was issued in 1968, but due to various legal proceedings and errors in the rate of taxation, the reassessment order was made in 1972 subjecting the turnover to tax at 3 per cent. An appeal by the assessee led to the order being set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh assessment. After a series of appeals, the turnover was finally taxed at 7 per cent. The primary contention in the petition was regarding the initiation date of the reassessment proceedings and the limitation period.
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for the first time in 1974, beyond the five-year limitation period. The court clarified that the original assessment order dated 1964 was sought to be revised in 1968, and the mistake in the reassessment order did not reset the initiation date of the proceedings. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had set aside the original assessment order, leaving the proceedings open. The court emphasized that the limitation period for reassessment should be reckoned from the notice reopening the assessment, citing relevant case law.
In conclusion, the court held that the reassessment order was within the time limit, and there were no other arguments presented in the petition. Consequently, the revision was dismissed with costs, and the order of the Tribunal was upheld.
-
1981 (1) TMI 244
The High Court of Madras dismissed the tax revision case related to reassessment under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal's conclusion on the taxable sales chain involving spinning mills and co-operative societies was upheld, stating no error of law was committed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 243
The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal against the Board of Revenue's order, which revised the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding the assessment of a turnover of Rs. 33,287. The Board concluded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in stating that the assessing officer did not give sufficient opportunity to the assessees to produce the necessary forms. The Court found that the assessees had adequate time to provide the required forms, and thus upheld the Board's decision.
-
1981 (1) TMI 242
Issues:
1. Taxability of bardana sales under the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Denial of concessional rate of tax on certain sales.
3. Jurisdiction of assessing authority post-remand in tax assessments.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the Commissioner's revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the taxability of bardana sales by a partnership firm under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer deemed these sales as inter-State sales, leading to a dispute with the assessee. The appellate authority initially upheld the taxability of bardana but remanded the case concerning concessional tax rate on other sales for further verification.
2. The appellate court's remand was specific to the concessional tax rate issue, not a complete reassessment. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to allow the assessee to prove the registration status of purchasing dealers for the sales in question. However, post-remand, the Sales Tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention on bardana sales tax liability, citing finality of the previous order. The Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, emphasizing the limitation on re-agitating settled issues post-remand.
3. The Additional Judge (Revisions) accepted the assessee's argument on bardana sales tax liability without considering the finality of the previous order. The High Court highlighted the Full Bench decision's relevance in distinguishing cases where assessments were set aside for fresh assessment versus cases like this where only a specific aspect was remanded. The Full Bench clarified that after a remand, the assessing authority's jurisdiction is limited to the remanded issue.
4. The High Court concluded that since the assessee did not challenge the previous order through revision, it attained finality, precluding re-agitation post-remand. The Sales Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner's decisions aligning with this principle were deemed correct. The Additional Judge's contrary view was deemed erroneous in law. The High Court allowed the Commissioner's revision, emphasizing the importance of respecting finality in tax assessments and awarded costs to the Commissioner.
-
1981 (1) TMI 241
Issues:
1. Disputed turnover and assessment based on a survey.
2. Rejection of accounts and turnover estimation for the kiln business.
3. Jurisdiction and duty of the revising authority to decide questions of fact and law.
Analysis:
1. The case involved revisions under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding disputed turnover and assessment based on a survey conducted on the assessee's kiln. The assessing authority rejected the accounts and estimated turnover for the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, leading to appeals and subsequent revisions by the assessee. The appellate and revising authorities confirmed the assessments, relying on the survey findings and the statement of the chowkidar present during the survey.
2. The revising authority's decision was challenged on the grounds that it did not independently examine the contentions raised by the assessee regarding the rejection of accounts and turnover estimation for the kiln business. It was argued that the revising authority, as the final fact-finding body, should have assessed the evidence and contentions presented by the assessee. The court emphasized that the revising authority's jurisdiction is akin to an appellate jurisdiction, allowing it to investigate and decide on all questions of fact and law raised before it, even if there are concurrent findings by lower authorities.
3. Considering the legal precedent that the revising authority must decide on all questions raised before it, the court found that the revising authority failed to fulfill its duty in examining the disputed facts related to the kiln business adequately. As a result, the court allowed the revisions in part and remanded the cases to the Sales Tax Tribunal for a fresh decision specifically concerning the business of the brick kiln, highlighting the importance of the revising authority's obligation to thoroughly consider all factual and legal aspects raised before it.
-
1981 (1) TMI 240
Issues: Interpretation of entry No. 1 of the Second Schedule of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 regarding exemption for cereals and pulses sold in sealed containers.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, read with section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975. The issue at hand revolves around whether stapled polythene bags, in which pop corn was sold by a dealer, qualify as sealed containers as per entry No. 1 of the Second Schedule appended to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The respondent claimed exemption from tax under this entry, contending that the stapled polythene bags were not sealed containers. The dispute arose during the assessment year 1968-69, involving the respondent, a registered dealer selling pop corn in such bags. The Additional Commissioner did not accept the respondent's contention, leading to a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner.
The Financial Commissioner opined that sealing is typically done to make food-stuff airtight for prolonging product life and facilitating transportation. However, in this case, the stapling of polythene bags was loose, rendering them non-airtight and unfit for long-term preservation. The Financial Commissioner held that the stapled bags did not qualify as sealed containers, thereby denying the exemption claimed by the respondent. The Commissioner of Sales Tax challenged this decision, citing relevant case law to support the argument that access to the contents should be impossible without breaking the fastening for a container to be considered sealed.
The court referenced two key cases to support its decision. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. G.G. Industries, the Supreme Court held that a container is sealed if access to the contents is impossible without breaking the fastening. Similarly, in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. National Chikki Mart, the Bombay High Court deemed heat-sealed polythene bags containing chikki as sealed containers since accessing the contents required breaking the bag. In the present case, the court observed a sample of loosely stapled polythene bags and acknowledged that while a person could break the staples to access the pop corn easily, it was still possible to extract the contents without breaking the fastening.
Ultimately, the court held that the stapled polythene bags in question did not meet the criteria of sealed containers, as access to the pop corn could be achieved without breaking the staples. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court, the judgment favored the respondent-dealer, granting them the entitlement to exemption and costs. The reference was answered in the affirmative in favor of the respondent.
-
1981 (1) TMI 239
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of excess collection made from customers on account of Central sales tax.
Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a question referred to the Calcutta High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 76,103, representing the excess collection made from customers on account of Central sales tax, should be considered as taxable income under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a resident company for the assessment year 1968-69, had transferred this sum from the Central sales tax account to an unclaimed deposit account for the financial year ending on 31st March, 1968. The Income-tax Officer initially added back this amount in the computation of the total income, considering it as part of trading receipts no longer payable due to excess collection. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner overturned this decision, stating that the amount was refundable and not yet final, thereby upholding the contention of the assessee.
Subsequently, the revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected the revenue's argument and held that the amount in question could not be treated as trading receipts. The Tribunal's decision was based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in various cases, including Chowringhee Sales Bureau Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Sinclair Murray and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta. These cases established that amounts collected, even if not paid to the government, constituted trading receipts and had to be included in the total income of the assessee. The Calcutta High Court and the Gujarat High Court also followed similar principles in their respective decisions. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the amount in question did not represent the assessee's taxable income based on the established legal precedents.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the negative and in favor of the revenue, indicating that the amount in question should be considered as taxable income. The judgment was delivered by Justices Sabyasachi Mukharji and Sudhindra Mohan Guha, with Justice Sudhindra Mohan Guha concurring with Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji's decision.
-
1981 (1) TMI 238
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sale of oilcakes to dealers outside Madhya Pradesh were sales of unascertained or future goods under section 4(2)(b) of the Central Act.
2. Whether the subsequent sales of oilcakes fall under section 3(b) of the Central Act and if the State of Madhya Pradesh was competent to levy tax despite no C form being obtained.
3. Whether the penalty imposed on the applicant under section 43(1) of the State Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Act was proper and legal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The first issue concerns whether the sale of oilcakes to dealers in Maharashtra and Madras were sales of unascertained or future goods under section 4(2)(b) of the Central Act. The assessee argued that the sales were conditional, finalized only after the goods were analyzed at the destination, thus making the sale complete outside Madhya Pradesh. However, the Court found that the sales were effected by transfer of documents of title during the movement of goods from Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to Maharashtra and Madras, making them inter-State sales under section 3(b) of the Central Act. The goods were not unascertained, and the sale was conditional, but the property in the goods passed to the buyer at once. Therefore, the sale was deemed to take place in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, and section 4 was not applicable. The Court answered this question in the negative and against the assessee.
Issue 2:
The second issue examined whether the subsequent sales of oilcakes fell under section 3(b) of the Central Act and whether the State of Madhya Pradesh could levy tax despite no C form being obtained. The Court noted that the sales were covered by section 3(b) as they were effected by transfer of documents of title during movement. Under section 9(1), tax on such sales should be collected by the State from which the movement commenced (Rajasthan or Uttar Pradesh). The proviso to section 9(1) allows for tax collection by the State where the dealer effecting the subsequent sale could have obtained the prescribed form (C form). The assessee argued that since no tax was leviable on oilcakes in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, obtaining a C form was unnecessary. The Court agreed, stating that the purpose of obtaining a C form is to have sales taxed at a concessional rate, which was irrelevant here. Therefore, the proviso to section 9(1) was not attracted, and Madhya Pradesh was not competent to levy tax. The Court answered this question in the negative and against the department.
Issue 3:
The third issue addressed the legality of the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 43(1) of the State Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Act. The assessee did not include the sales in question in the return, believing Madhya Pradesh was not competent to tax them. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, which held that filing an inaccurate return without a guilty mind does not justify penalty imposition. Thus, the penalty was not justified. The Court answered this question in the negative and against the department.
Conclusion:
The reference was answered accordingly, with each issue resolved against the department. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (1) TMI 237
The High Court of Madras dismissed tax revision cases related to the sales of packing materials for export of sea foods. The petitioners claimed exemption under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, but the Tribunal found that the packing materials were not part of the export contracts. Therefore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, and the petitions were dismissed.
-
1981 (1) TMI 236
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of rectifiers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Determination of whether rectifiers fall under entry 20 in Schedule C or entry 22 in Schedule E.
3. Interpretation of the term "electrical goods" within the context of the Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Rectifiers:
The applicants, registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, manufacture and sell rectifiers. They were assessed to payment of sales tax by the Sales Tax Officer based on the classification of rectifiers under entry 20 in Schedule C rather than the residuary entry 22 in Schedule E. The Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this classification. The High Court was approached to determine if the rectifiers fell under entry 20 in Schedule C or entry 22 in Schedule E.
2. Determination of Appropriate Entry:
The primary question referred to the High Court was: "Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the rectifiers manufactured and marketed by the petitioners were not covered by entry No. 15 of Schedule C nor by entry No. 22 of Schedule E but are covered by entry No. 20 of Schedule C of the said Act?" Initially, the Tribunal's statement of the case lacked sufficient detail, prompting the High Court to request a supplementary statement.
3. Interpretation of "Electrical Goods":
The description of goods in entry 20 in Schedule C (from 15th July, 1962, onwards) reads: "Electrical goods, other than those specified in any other entry in this schedule or in any other schedule." The core issue was whether rectifiers could be described as electrical goods. The rectifiers convert alternating current into direct current for various industrial uses. The applicants argued that rectifiers do not consume electricity and thus should not be classified as electrical goods. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that consumption of electricity is not a decisive criterion. Instead, the purpose and direct connection with electricity (production, distribution, transmission, or utilisation) are more relevant.
The court provided examples to illustrate that many items requiring electrical energy are not necessarily classified as electrical goods (e.g., electric railway engines, electric typewriters). Conversely, items like electrical wires and plugs, which do not consume electricity but are integral to its transmission, are classified as electrical goods.
Conclusion:
Applying these principles, the court concluded that rectifiers have a direct nexus with the utilisation of electricity, as their primary function is to convert alternating current into direct current, making them electrical goods under entry 20 in Schedule C. The court also referenced similar cases from other jurisdictions (e.g., State of Andhra Pradesh v. Indian Detonators Ltd., William Jacks and Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras, Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Import Association, Allahabad) to support its decision.
Judgment:
The High Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the department and against the applicants. The applicants were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 300 in Sales Tax Reference No. 31 of 1976, with no order as to costs in the other references. The fees deposited by the applicants were to be adjusted against the order of costs, with the balance refunded to the applicants.
References answered in the affirmative.
........
|
9911796707
