Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(72)ELT288TriDel
1. Shri A.M. Guha, the ld. Consultant appeared for the appellant and Shri B.D. Bhagat, the ld. JDR for the respondent.2. Heard the submissions of both sides. The main emphasis of the ld.Consultant appearing for the appellant was that the goods had not reached the RG-1 stage; that they were maintaining pre-RG 1 register incorporating the daily production reports; that a number of operations were required to be conducted on the goods before they could be entered in RG 1 register; that the statement of Shri Upadhyay which has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate authority was retracted; that in a case reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T.425, the Tribunal had held that the plea put forth by the appellant could be accepted if they had maintained and produced private records incorporating the daily production of the goods. Relying on this decision on an analogy basis, the ld. Consultant submitted that the appellant was maintaining records in pre-RG 1 register whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT573TriDel
1.1 The appellant herein, a non-resident Indian came on 1-11-1978. He filed two baggage declaration forms on 6-11-1978 comprising several electronic items in respect of his unaccompanied baggage. The goods were examined on 9-11-1978. The Customs authorities assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 72,950/- CIF. No import licence for importation of these goods was produced. Since in respect of both the baggage declaration forms the appellant had declared the contents as personal clothes, foodstuffs and books, there appeared to be a prima facie case of misdeclaration rendering the goods liable to confiscation 111(d) read with Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. A show cause notice dated 10-11-1978 was issued to him. In his written explanation dated 30-11-1978 the appellant stated that he brought with him only one tape recorder with several accessories absolutely for his personal use and not for resale. He further stated that he was not aware that these items could not be brought as p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(72)ELT588TriDel
1. Question involved in all these matters are common and, therefore, a common order is being passed.2. The assessees (whether the appellants or respondents) are manufacturing cycle grade steel balls. They contend that the steel balls manufactured by them either fall under Chapter 87 Tariff Heading 87.14 or Chapter 73 Tariff Heading 73.26 as parts of cycles or other forged products, as the case may be. On the other hand, the department contends that the steel balls manufactured by the assessees are polished steel balls within the specifications given in Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the CETA, 1985 and, therefore, all these steel balls fall under Tariff Heading 84.82 as parts of ball bearings. Consequently, benefit of Notification No. 62/86, dt. 10-2-1986 .or 162/86, dt.1-3-1986 given to parts and accessories of cycles and cycle rickshaws will not be available to the steel balls manufactured by the assessees.It is the case of the assessees that prior to 1-3-1986 i.e. the date from which the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)50ITD501(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby he has upheld the action on the part of the Income-tax Officer in subjecting to tax the salary paid to the assessees by their employer for the 28 days off periods when they were physically off the rigs installed in Indian coastal waters.2. To set out the brief facts of the case, the appellants are foreign technicians, who have been deputed by their foreign employer, namely, M/s. Atwood Oceanics International S.A., to work on the rigs situated off the Indian coast pursuant to the contract entered into between the said foreign employer and ONGC.3. In the course of the assessment proceedings it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the salary for the off periods when they were off the rigs being physically outside India and the said salary having been paid outside India was not taxable in India. The aforesaid claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer primarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1994)50ITD336(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee, which is directed against the revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 20-3-1989.2. The assessee has raised a specific ground vide ground No. 1 challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax and three other specific grounds challenging the merits of the revisional order of the Commissioner.3. The assessee is a resident company. The assessment year involved is 1984-85 for which the accounting year ended on 30-6-1983. Against a loss of Rs. 74,631 returned by the assessee, the Assessing Officer determined the loss at Rs. 7,52,029. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer is said to have not properly enquired into the expenditure of Rs. 1,04,139 on conveyance and commission and brokerage paid at Rs. 6,81,186 on sales promotion. Further, the assessee has paid bonus at the rate of 20% though on account of loss sustained only the minimum bonus of 8.33% was payable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(72)ELT339TriDel
1. M/s. Mascot (India) Tools & Forgings have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Collector. The Addl. Collector in his order had held :- "The Grinding Belt on which the party had availed modvat is a contrivance used for grinding and finishing forged tool shaped products to bring about change. Thus in my opinion, it falls within the purview of exclusion as provided in the explanation and would not be considered as 'input' for the purpose of modvat under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the defence arguments and hold that duty paid on grinding belts cannot be taken credit of for payment of duty on handtools, the final product, under modvat scheme 'Grinding Belts' not being input in terms of explanation appended to Rule 57-A of the Central Excise Rules." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of handtools. Grinding Belt was declared as an input and modvat credit amounting to Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Reported in : (1995)53ITD514(Mad.)
1. This is a departmental appeal for assessment year 1985-86 directed against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) - V, Madras, dt. 31-10-1988.There are three grounds in this appeal.2. The first ground is about the disallowance of interest capitalised as having formed part of the actual cost of plant and machinery purchased by the assessee-company by invoking Explanation (8) to Section 43(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. The assessee is a company in which the public are not substantially interested. It carried on business of manufacture and sale of Twist Drills, Reamers, Taps and other tools.For assessment year 1985-86, it returned an income of Rs. 53,08,501 under its income-tax return dated 30-9-85. By the assessment order completed under Section 143(3) dt. 29-2-88 the total income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,62,80,524. While making the assessment, some additions and disallowances were made.Admittedly, the assessee acquired certain assets (plant and machinery) making use of the Defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT331TriDel
1. These three appeals are disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is common to all the appeals. The facts are as follows. The assessee has been granting various kinds of discounts to its wholesale dealers. Two such discounts, namely turnover discount and additional discount are the subject matter of these appeals. Turnover discount is granted to the wholesale dealers by the assessee on the basis of the turnover achieved by the dealer on a slab basis in terms of percentage and the same is reflected in the policies issued by them and signed by them at the commencement of the year and are indicated and filed alongwith the price list filed under Rule 173C. Once the dealer achieve the turnover in terms of the agreement, the company pays the discount at the agreed rate on the turnover in the form of credit notes.2. In the case of additional discounts, the assessee has been granting these discounts in addition to trade discount for certain categories of tools in certain regions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(73)ELT146TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 22-2-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents have also filed cross-objections. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of dipped man-made fabrics which are produced by dipping Nylon or Rayon Cord fabrics in a solution of Resorcinol Fomaldehyde and Latex. The solution that is used for this purpose is generally known as Resourcinol Formaldehyde Latex mix or 'dip solution' (hereinafter called RFL Solution). The RFL solution is manufactured by the appellants in cheir factory and captively consumed for the purpose of dipping. The appellants filed a classification list classifying RFL solution under sub-heading No. 4002.00 as "Synthetic Rubber in Primary Form". The Assistant Collector after hearing the appellants passed an order approving the Classification of the product under sub-heading 4002.00. The appellants filed an appeal before the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Madrasion the grounds t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT930TriDel
1. Dr. Rajinder Nath Mallick, 192-C, Sainik Farms, New Delhi 110062 has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, (Appeals), New Delhi. Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant, Learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant had imported 1983 model and time of import was 91/2 years old. He pleaded that the car being very old was in a very bad shape.The Assistant Collector had allowed the depreciation at s rate of 46% plus an ad-hoc depreciation. Shri Anand further argued that the appellant being not satisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Collector ad challenged the same before the Collector (Appeals) and Collector (Appeals) had allowed further depreciation of 2%. He pleaded that the appellant's car is 1983 model. Shri Anand referred to Vadodara Collectorate F. No. VIII/1-1/Cus./T/93, dated 15-6-1993. He pleaded that as per Board's circular, the Depreciation was allowed at 70%. The said circular is reporte...
Tag this Judgment!