Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1996)(81)ELT657Tri(Chennai)
1. The stay petition has been filed for waiver of pre-deposit of a duty of Rs. 4,97,684.59 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- levied on the appellant under the impugned order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy dated 2-9- 1994.2. Shri K. Narayanan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue relates to classification and the petitioner /appellant has been manufacturing parts of machineries such as Bobbings, Ring tubes, spools, prin boxes etc. These items are used solely and principally in textile machineries. The petitioner chose to classify the goods under Heading 8448 of the CET whereas the department chose to classify the same under Heading 8483. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. It was further urged that the petitioner is not guilty of suppression and therefore, longer period of limitation in terms of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)56ITD307(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhopal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 being disallowance of bad debt.3. The facts of the case are that the assessee-company derives income from contract work with Indian Railways during the year under consideration the assessee wrote off a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 due from various Divisions of the Indian Railways, which related to various years. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not done any effort to realise the said amount from the above Department. Since there was ray of hope left to recover the bad debt, he did not allow the deduction for the sum of Rs. 2,58,537 claimed by the assessee.4. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) considering the amendment in Section 36(1)(vii) allowed the deduction with the following observation :- What was necessary was that the amount should have been written off and it was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT352TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-appeal dated 28-2-1994, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appellants had filed a refund application for Rs. 3,31,813.62 in respect of duty paid for the products, Bars cleared on payment of duty falling under erstwhile T.I. 26AA(iii) during the period from Oct., 1981 to July, 1988 on the ground that Flat bar below 3 mm in thickness falls in the category of bars both in technical as well as in commercial parlance and such bars are exempted from levy of Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 206/63, dated 30-11-1963 as amended by Notification No. 163/68, dated 31-8-1968 and further Notifications issued thereafter. The appellants relied on the judgements rendered by the Tribunal in support of their refund claim. The department after examining the claim felt that the assessee had not adopted the procedure as laid down under Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they did not submit a letter of pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1995)LC400Tri(Mum.)bai
1. As all the appeals are directed against the order-in-original No.126/Collr/89, dated 26-9-1989 of the Collector of Customs (P), Ahmedabad, ordering confiscation vide Section 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, of 10 Draw Texturising Machines, with option given to the parties from whom they were seized, to pay fine of the amounts specified in the said order in lieu of confiscation and also imposing personal penalties as specified, on the appellants here, vide Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act, all the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Consequent to seizure of some imported textile machinery from the premises of M/s. R.P. Industries (C/545/89), a Registered SSI unit, a proprietary concern of Mrs. R.P. Mehta where her husband Mr. R.P. Mehta (C/568/89) was working as the Manager, investigations were initiated by the Preventive Collectorate of Customs at Ahmedabad. The same resulted in recovery of 10 Draw Texturising Machines believed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (1996)55TTJ(Ahd.)643
The appeal of the Revenue is directed against order dt. 20th Sept., 1990 recorded by CIT(A)-I-Baroda by which she allowed the claim of assessee for depreciation @ 40% on all the ten tankers and 100% on gas cylinders/tankers. The assessee has filed C. O. in support of the order of learned CIT(A).2. The above ground of Revenue consists of two parts. The first part relates to the 100% depreciation allowed by CIT(A) on gas cylinders/tankers which initially was disallowed by Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as AO) and the other part relates to the @ 40% depreciation disallowed by AO in respect of 8 trucks and allowed by learned CIT(A). We are taking up the first part of the ground and for this, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested and it was engaged in the year under consideration in the manufacture and sale of Sodium Metal Chlorina and Chemicals. During the year under consideration the AO observed that assessee ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT400TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 26-3-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of an imported consignment of Rubber Reclaiming Agent, JACET-350.Initially the product was classified under Heading 3403.19 of the Customs Tariff as a 'Lubricating Preparation'. Later, the Department issued a demand of differential duty of Rs. 35,208/- on the grounds that the item was classifiable under Heading 3812.30. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector after ordering re-classification of the item under Heading 3812.20. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 240/91-Cus., dated 21-6-1991 set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the grounds that the classification up he d by the Assistant Collector was different from the one proposed in the show cause notice. On the direction of the Collector (Appeals) the matter was reopened after i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC396Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from order-in-original, dated 21-5-1992, passed by the Collector of Central Excise New Delhi, confirming duty amount of Rs. 10,08,020.05 as Central Excise duty for clearance made in respect of Carbon Paper Rolls falling under sub-heading No. 4809.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 for the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 under the provisions of Section 11A(1) proviso of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. They have been imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/ under Rule 173Q.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing the said goods manufactured by them without payment of duty thereon. The officers of Central Excise (Preventive) visited the factory premises on 25-2-1991 and found them manufacturing and clearing the said goods under the said sub-heading after availing of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended. The statement of the partner of the firm was recorded and the statutory records were scrutinised by the Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)57ITD72(Mum.)
1. In this appeal the assessee has objected to sustenance of part of penalty imposed for delay in making payment of tax deducted at source, to the Government Treasury.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a subsidiary of State Bank of India. The Assessing Officer had imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,24,381 on the assessee on account of delay in depositing into the Government Account the tax within the stipulated time, which the assessee had deducted at source. It was explained by the learned Counsel for the assessee that there were 349 payees from whom the assessee had deducted lax at source involving an amount of Rs. 3,58,00,000 out of which only six cases were such where tax deducted at source was not deposited in time into the Government Treasury. He referred to the facts, reproduced in the order of the Assessing Officer which indicate that in 5 out of the 6 cases the TDS amounts ranged from Rs. 2,300 to Rs. 37,416 and in four of those cases the due date was 7-11-1991 but t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh
Reported in : (1996)56ITD436(Chd.)
1. The only issue in this appeal by the assessee for assessment year 1988-89 is whether the assessee who is an individual and is doing the business of jewellery, is entitled to deduction under Section 32AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or not.2. Brief facts of the case are these. The assessee purchased two cars for Rs. 2,08,060. His income from business for assessment year 1988-89 was declared at Rs. 2,04,896,20 per cent of which at Rs. 40,979 was claimed as deduction under Section 32AB of the Act in respect of the cars. The Assessing Officer disallowed the assessee's claim in this behalf by holding that the cars were "road transport vehicles" and hence not entitled to deduction under Section 32AB. The learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.3. Shri K. P. Bajaj, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer had treated the cars as plant and allowed depreciation thereon. It was pointed out that under Section 43(3) of the Act, 'plant' include...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC392Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Bombay, allowing the importer's claim for the benefit of assessment of imported item namely, Film Processor Model No. QSF-B50-3 under Heading 84.66 as "project import". The original authority had rejected the appellant's claim on the ground that the import consists of one film processor and not a complete minilab. The appellants have produced industrial licence to show that the items had been allowed for manufacture by the Director of Industries, Bombay. Industrial Licence is for manufacture of printing rolls, developing rolls, X-Ray lith films, developers etc. yet the Collector (Appeals) held that the item is required to be considered for the concessional rate of duty under the "Project Import" in view of the recommendatory letter dated 2-5-1985 issued by the said authorities. The Revenue is contending in this appeal that the assessment under Heading 84.66 of CTA, 1975 can be considered only in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!