Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT382TriDel
1.1 The respondents herein imported one No. Arriflex 35 111 Camera with accessories against capital goods allowed under OGL of ITC Policy 1984-March 1985. They filed an application for registration of their purchase order No. Nil dated 28-6-1984 under Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 for assessment under Heading 84.66 C.T.A., 1975. The respondents herein filed an application for registration on the ground that the existing unit of film production is for substantial expansion. The camera with accessories was needed for shooting of films both indoors and outdoors.1.2 The original authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Customs, denied the registration and consequently the benefit of Tariff Heading 84.66 on the ground that the film production unit of the respondents cannot be treated as an industrial plant inasmuch as an industrial plant envisages production of goods whereas no such production of goods takes place here. The activity of shooting of films ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1994)50TTJ(Coch.)389
This appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty under S.271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1978-79.2. The assessee is a dealer in cashew and also runs a toddy shop at Polayathode. The assessee field the return of income on 25th March, 1981 declaring the current years loss at Rs. 10,08,764. The assessee offered net income from toddy business at Rs. 5,000 on estimate, on the basis of the income fixed for the asst. yr. 1976-77 from this shop, the accounts relating to which were seized during the course of search in December, 1976. The net income was fixed in the assessment at Rs. 75,000. Subsequent to the completion of assessment on 30th Nov., 1984, the assessee was required to file a cash flow statement for the financial year 1977-78. In the cash flow statement filed on 24th Feb., 1986 income from toddy shop was credited at Rs. 40,000 as against Rs. 5,000 offered by the assessee. The Assessing Officer concluded from the above statement that the assessee had admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)51ITD83(Mum.)
(1) The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of capital gains of Rs. 23,370 on sale of 485 shares of TISCO which were converted into stock-in-trade before their sale. (2) The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that conversion of shares into stock-in-trade and their subsequent sale was with a view to avoid capital gains tax. He ought to have applied the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in McDowell's case (154 ITR 148) and confirmed the addition. (3) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have enhanced the income under the head 'Capital gains' representing the difference between the cost price and the conversion price as he himself has considered the amendment to Section 34 w.e.f. 1-4-1985 in the appellate order.Thus, the dispute is about the taxability and quantification of capital gains.2. The assessee is an individual and the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1985. The assessee had sold 485 equity shares of TISCO for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(86)ELT487TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s.Century Laminating Co. Ltd. Hapur are the manufacturer of Plastic Laminating sheet falling under heading 3920.31 of CET, 1985. It was the case of the Revenue that the respondents cleared 18.346 MT of unbleached absorbent kraft paper from their factory under Rule 57F(1)(ii) during November, 1989 without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty on the allegation that they received the said kraft paper on payment of duty and availed of Modvat credit at the restricted rate of Rs. 800/- per tonne in view of Notification No. 149/87-C.E., dated 20-5-1987 and at the time of clearance of the same they paid the duty only equal to Modvat credit availed of by them that is to say at the rate of Rs. 800/-per tonne by debiting instead of paying the appropriate rate of duty leviable on the said goods at the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC276Tri(Delhi)
1. When the matter was called none has appeared on behalf of the applicants. There is, however, request from the ld. Advocate Shri Bipin Garg that the matter may be decided on merits since it ' is already covered by Tribunal's Order Nos. E/86 to 95/94-B1 and Final Order No.E/135 to 144/94-B1, dt. 3-3-1994. Ld. PR Shri K.K. Dutta fairly concedes the aforesaid position. We also notice that the impugned order has already been set aside in the case of another parry M/s. Bharat Steel Rolling Mills vide Tribunal's Stay Order No. E/145/94-B1 and Final Order No. E/246/94-B1, dt. 29-4-1994 in Appeal No. E/506/94-B1.We allow the stay petition unconditionally and allow the appeal in the following terms as stated in order dt. 29-4-1994 (supra). "We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. We are not impressed by the pleas raised by the ld. Advocate that they were eligible to use ingots for manufacture of bars and rods when the particular inputs was . only rerollable mater...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(72)ELT777TriDel
1. M/s. Central Construction & Engg. Co. Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Addl. Collector. The ld.Addl. Collector in his order had held :- "In view of the above, I am convinced that the cement mill had run for extra hours during the period from 24-2-1988 to 15-8-1988. However, in the Show Cause Notice while calculating the duty short paid, the benefit of those cases where the working hours recorded in the production slips were more than the ones shown in the log books, has not been given during the period from 1-3-1988 to 15-8-1988 which I hold to be incorrect. After allowing this benefit, total hours for which the mill had run extra, comes to 228.3 hours. On the basis of average production per hour during the relevant period, the quantity of cement less accounted for and duty evaded come to 471.150 MT and Rs. 91,622.06 (BED Rs. 87,350.99 + SED Rs. 4,271.07) respectively. I, therefore, demand a duty of Rs. 91,622.06 under Rule 9(1) read wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(89)ELT701TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 26-2-1993 passed by Collector (Appeals) Trichy against denial of benefit of exemption in respect of imported items namely : Foley Balloon Catheters under Notification No. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981. The ld. Collector has held that the goods are not eligible for duty free clearance under said notification in view of introduction of explanation in the notification brought about by an amending Notification No. 46/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989 by which the item in question is deleted. These goods had been imported on 1-1-1987 which is much earlier to the date of the amending notification which came into operation on 1-3-1989. The goods had been confiscated on the ground that it had infringed the trade mark of another foreign manufacturer. A show cause notice had been issued to that effect and thereafter an order-in-original dated 30-6-1987 was passed imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and in [lieu] lieu of the confiscation, a redemption fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT219TriDel
1. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry dated 3-7-1993 for clearance of four numbers of "Capacitance Bridge", along with copy of invoices, Bill of Entry, Advance Licence dated 4-6-1993, DEEC Book No. 81961 and Catalogue from Asea Brown Boveri, Sweden for "Portable Capacitance Bridge CB-10" along with copy of purchase order dated 21-6-1993.2. On scrutiny of the above documents, the department found the item 'Capacitance Bridge' have been mentioned in the description of goods under Advance Licence dated 4-6-1993 and which was also listed in part 'C list of materials in DEEC Book. However, it appeared that the importers were not entitled to the benefit of duty of free clearances in terms of customs Notification No. 159/90 dated 30-3-1990 for the following reasons as noted below : "i. The Notification fully exempts materials required for the purpose of manufacture of products (Resultant Products) or replenishment of materials having identical specifications and technical characteristics a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1995)51TTJ(Ahd.)147
The only ground in this appeal by the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that lottery prize of Rs. 15 lacs was won by the assessee alongwith other 7 co-winners.2. The assessee filed a return of income on 16th May, 1986 showing income of Rs. 82,310. As per the said return the assessee derived income from salary and also lottery winning prize. As per the statement annexed with the said return it was mentioned that the assessee derived 1/8th of the total lottery winning prize of Rs. 15 lacs. He included his 1/8th share of Rs. 1,87,500 in the said return of income. The prize was announced in Dec., 1985. Soon thereafter, the assessee wrote to the Assessing Officer informing him that the prize has been won jointly by 8 persons and his share is only 1/8th. It was further pointed out that the authorities under the Gujarat State Lottery rules would disburse the entire prize money in one name and will deduct tax at source at the rate of 30% unless a certificate for lower deduction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT134TriDel
1. In both these appeals, common question of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. By a common order, Collector (Appeals) disposed of three appeals. Two appeals of the appellants and one appeal from the department on the same issue.The Assistant Collector's Order-in-Original was also challenged by the Revenue and hence three appeals came to be disposed of, which are challenged before us. The ld. JDR, Shri S.K. Sharma, at the outset, submitted that the assessee should also file one more appeal, as three appeals had been disposed of by the ld. Collector. We don't see any merit in this submission as the Order-in-original dt. 23-11-1990 had been challenged by both the parties and as the grievances of both the parties arose from a common order-in-original, therefore, the disposal of two appeals arising out of one Order-in-original could mean disposal of two appeals and not three. The assessee is aggrieved with the Order-in-original in respect ...
Tag this Judgment!