Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. These two applications are directed against the order nos.20 dated May 17, 2007, order no.2 dated February 16, 2005 and order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly in Misc. Case No.141 of 2004 thereby holding that the misc. case is maintainable and rejecting an application for amendment of the misc. case. The two applications have arisen out of the orders as stated above at the instance of the rival parties one against the others, and as such, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For convenience, I am discussing the C.O. No.3211 of 2007 first. C.O. No.3211 of 2007 This application is at the instance of the petitioner of the Misc. case and is directed against the order no.21 dated May 29, 2007 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the petition. The short fact is that the petitioner filed an application under Section 11 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for cancellation of the agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2002)(103)LC841Tri(Kol.)kata
1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta has confirmed demand of duty of Rs. 46,90,896/- (rupees forty six lakh ninety thousand eight hundred and ninety six) against the appellants and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lakh). 2.1. The appellant is manufacturer of man-made fabrics classifiable under chapter 55 of Central Excise Tariff. During the period June 1991 to December 1995 the appellant received grey fabric from outside parties for the purposes of processing the same. The processed fabrics were cleared by them on payment of duty on the basis of the declaration made by the supplier of the raw materials as regards the sale price of the processed fabrics. 2.2. The appellants were served with a show cause notice on 15.6.1996 alleging that during the processing of the fabrics there was a shrinkage loss of 4%, which was liable to be included in the assessable value of the processed fabric. Accordingly the notice called...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (2008)9STR509
1. The appellant came in appeal against order-in-appeal dated 29-3-2004 which held that M/s. ICI India Ltd. had acted as a clearing and forwarding agent of the appellant and service tax paid by the appellant was as a person who engaged M/s. ICI (India) Ltd. as their clearing and forwarding agent and such payment was legal and correct for which no refund of tax so paid arose. While doing so, the impugned order upheld order of Adjudication dated 10-6-2003 which rejected refund claim of Rs. 64,94,422/- of this Appellant.1.2 The Id. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in terms of an agreement dated 29th August, 1996 the appellant engaged M/s. ICI (India) Ltd. as their consignment, distribution and selling agent.Clause 2.1 of the said agreement defined relation of both in this manner. Duties of that agent was defined by Clause 3 of agreement. Such agent in terms of Clause 3.2 of the agreement was to use its best endeavours to promote and market the products of the appellant....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
1. These two appeals have been filed by the Department against the impugned order of the lower appellate authority. In the ground of appeal filed by the Revenue, it is argued that the lower appellate authority having confirmed the order of demand should have also imposed penalty under Rule 57-1(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Shri P.K. Das, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue supports the Departmental's appeals and states that the lower appellate authority is not justified in setting aside the penalty.3. Shri Kartik Kurmy, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the order passed by the lower appellate authority and challenges the appeals filed by the Revenue on the following grounds: (i) The authorization to file the present appeals has been signed by only one Commissioner and not by a Committee of Two Commissioners as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the said authorization is not valid, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
1. In pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8667-8668 of 1997 arising out of Income Tax Reference Nos.97 of 1994 & 160 of 1992 in R.A. Nos. 1036/C of 1992& 259/C of 1991, these two appeals were taken up for hearing on 23-4-2007, 4-5-2007 and 21-5-2007. The Learned Senior Advocate for the revenue was asked to file rebuttal in regard to documents filed by the assessee's counsel within 10 days i.e., on or before 14-5-2007 but he prayed for one months more time to file the same. Till 21-5-2007, i.e., the 3rd date of hearing, nothing has been filed. As such we proceeded to pass the order assuming that the revenue does not have anything to file further and dictated the order on 9-7-2007 after waiting for about more than a month. Even till today, i.e., signing of the order, nothing has been filed from the side of the revenue.2. These two appeals pertaining to assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 were earlier heard and disposed of by the Tribunal in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1993)44ITD711(Kol.)
What was taken in appeal by the assessee's appeal for additional deduction under section 80HHC was in respect of the Duty Draw Backs and Cash Subsidies which, according to the assessee, should be included as part of the export turnover for the purposes of calculating the deduction. The appeal under section 32A to the Commissioner (Appeals) was in respect of disallowance of the claim relating to the air-conditioners and moulds installed in the Loni Factory of the assessee. The issue whether the assessee was entitled to any deduction under section 80HHC in respect of the value of the marine products included in the export turnover was a separate issue. That issue was not taken up in appeal since it could not have been as the assessee had been given the relief by the assessing officer. Likewise, the question whether the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of the plant and machinery installed in the Loni Factory in view of the relevant entries in Schedule XI to the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (1994)49ITD1(Kol.)
1. By this misc. application the assessee has required the Tribunal to amend its order dated 30-4-1991 under the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. We have heard Sri P.R.P. Verma, the learned counsel of the assessee and Sri S.C. Sen, the learned senior departmental representative. We have also perused the order of the Tribunal dated 30-4-1991. The paper book filed by the assessee's counsel on 8-7-1991 on which the assessee's counsel has heavily relied on was also gone through.3. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both the sides and the records available to us, we do not find any merit in the misc.application filed by the assessee. We also find that the paper book filed by the assessee on 8-7-1991 was not filed before the Tribunal during the course of hearing the appeal. Since the Tribunal has passed its order on the basis of arguments advanced by both the sides during the course of hearing the appeal as well as on the basis of the records av...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2004)89ITD199Cal
1. The appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1997-98 are directed against the consolidated order dated 11-11-02 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XVIII, Kolkata. The issue involved being common, a consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience. Parties have been heard and record perused.2. The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that one Shri Harishankar Prasad Jayaswal son of Bindeshwari Prasad Jayaswal created a trust styled "YAGYAWANT JAYASWAL FAMILY TRUST" by a deed of settlement dated 13-11-1964. Shri Harishankar Prasad Jayaswal and Shri Ramkishore Jayaswal son of late Sheojagat Prasad Jayaswal, and Shri Kirshna Dutta Pandeya were appointed as Trustees. A sum of Rs. 5,000 was transferred to the Trust for purpose of the Trust. The Trust was mainly created for applying the income for the maintenance, education, engagement, marriage and medical relief of the children of the settlors sister Smt.Yagyawati Jayaswal married to Shri Gulab Singh J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Reported in : (1987)(13)LC717Tri(Kol.)kata
1. These appeals relate to common issues. These were, therefore, taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No.C-152/84-Cal., vide Sr.in was filed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta as per order of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi in Order in 1/R-Cus/Gr. dated 23.7.1984 under Section 129-D(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, against the order dated 17.11.1983 passed by the said Collector. The other appeals, vide Serial Nos.2 to 10, were filed by the importers concerned against the respective order-in- original passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. (a) M/s Mansingka Brothers, respondent in , entered into a contract No. Oil/002/D/83 dated 15.3.1983 with M/s Kuok (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore for importing 1500 M/Tons of Stearin Fatty Acid. The goods were to be shipped in part consignments. The first consignment of 200.17 M/Tons of the goods arrived at Calcutta Port on 13.9.1983 per "SS Johneverett". The respondent fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata
Reported in : (2005)92ITD148(Kol.)
1. The following question has been referred to the Special Bench for decision: "Whether, the Tribunal fee on an appeal against the order of penalty levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is governed by Clause (d) of Section 253(6) or Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 253(6) of the I.T.Act?" The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) of 14.2.2003. The appeal was against the levy of penalty of Rs. 9,990 levied Under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal was accompanied by a filing fee of Rs. 500. The Registry had marked the appeal as having been filed without the proper filing fee. According to the Registry the filing fee was paid short by Rs. 2,912. Apparently the Registry calculated the filing fee on the basis of the assessed income which was Rs. 3,41,220 as per the assessment order. According to Section 253(6)(c), where the total income of the assessee, "in the case to which the appeal relates" is more than Rs. 2 lacs, the appeal to the Tribunal sh...
Tag this Judgment!