Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Reported in : (1996)59ITD615(Coch.)
1. The Revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Petition against the order passed by this Tribunal in RA Nos. 171 & 172/Coch/94 on 22nd May, 1995.The Revenue had filed two reference applications Nos. 171 & 172/Coch/94 against the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee, Kerala Transport Co., Calicut, for the asst. yr. 1986-87. RA No.171/Coch/94 was against the order in ITA No. 175/Coch/1990 passed by the Tribunal on 28th Dec., 1993, in an appeal filed by the assessee and RA No. 172/Coch/94 was against the order in ITA No. 196/Coch/90 also passed by the Tribunal on 29th Dec., 1993, in an appeal filed by the Revenue. Both orders of the Tribunal were received by the CIT, Cochin, on 13th June, 1994. Against the orders of the Tribunal, the CIT filed reference applications under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, on 1st Aug., 1994. Along with these applications, the CIT also filed petitions accompanied with affidavits, for condonation of the delay of 136 days in making the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)59ITD423(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned CIT(A)-V, New Delhi, on 5th September, 1995 of asst. yr. 1992-93. The assessee has raised the following ground in this appeal : "That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in denying deduction under s. 80-I to the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not an "industrial undertaking engaged in production or manufacture of an article or thing." 2. The appellant company is an engineering company engaged in the business of designing, supply and installation of effluent treatment plant for treating the effluent to meet the discharge standards of Central/State Pollution Control Board as well as to achieve the quality of the treated effluent acceptable for reuse/recycle to the possible extent. The company submitted its return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 1,61,83,313 on 30th December, 1992. The same was processed under s. 143(1)(a) in which the income was determined at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for assessment year 1989-90. The issued involved in this appeal are carry forward of depreciation and charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C.2. The assessee is a company in which public are substantially interested. It carries on business in cold rolling treatment to HR coils. The components of its assessed income as projected by the assessee and as computed by the Assessing Officer are : As per As perProfit before depreciation 1,47,47,836 1,47,47,83630 per cent of book profit 18,43,065 -under section 115J -------------- 1,29,04,771Less : Depreciation 3,11,76,659 3,11,76,659 -------------- --------------Depn. to be carried forward 1,82,71,888 1,64,28,824under section 32(2) -------------- -------------- The entire dispute in this appeal is with regard to the adjustment of the book profit of Rs. 18,43,065. The assessee's claim is that this book profit of Rs. 18,43,065 has been d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1996)(88)ELT671Tri(Mum.)bai
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. A/06/92 dated 13-1-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, (Appeals) Pune.2. The Appellants sought permission from the Competent Authority for remission of duty vide Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules for 1310.440 M.T. of Molasses involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 41,279/- on the ground that the same had became unfit for consumption. The same was granted by the Collector vide his Order dated 25-5-1984. The Appellants, however, during the period from 18-6-1984 to 3-8-1984 removed the said quantity by sale of the same to one Mr. Wadekar for Rs. 1,00,000/- and hence show cause notice dated 13-12-1984 was issued demanding duty of Rs. 41,270.86. The said demand had been contested and it was contended that the removal was not as Molasses but as the Waste for being used as Fertilizer and hence no duty was chargeable. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand, however, on review application filed, the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(86)ELT519TriDel
1. The short issue for determination in this appeal is whether brown sugar produced during a particular year and refined during subsequent year is eligible for excess sugar production rebate during the year it was produced.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants submitted a claim for rebate of duty amounting to Rs. 33,181 /- on 1706.63 quintals of sugar obtained by reprocessing of 1921 quintals of brown sugar produced during the year 1982-83 season. The appellants contended that according to para 2(iv) of Notfn. No. 135/83, dated 30-4-1983 "Any sugar obtained by reprocessing of defective or damaged sugar or brown sugar, if the same has already been included in the quantity of sugar produced shall not be taken into account in computing the production of sugar during the period mentioned in column (1) of the said table in respect of a factory mentioned therein" and in accordance with this sub-para, it is clear that it was permissible to include brown sugar as prodtic-tion of se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(93)ELT461TriDel
1. By this appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of Collector, Central Excise confirming the demand of Rs.73,072/- and imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Central Excise officers visited the factory of the appellants on 22-11-1992. During the course of checking the records, the officers recovered one pocket diary from Shri Shyam Sunder Daga, the authorised signatory of the appellants. This diary contained date wise details of product on of marble slabs for the period 1-10-1992 to 21-11-1992. The notings in the diary revealed that the actual production of the marble slabs was being recorded in the said pocked diary and that only that quantity was being recorded in RG-1 register which the appellants wanted and not the entire production as was recorded in the pocket diary. The officers after comparing the production recorded in the pocket diary with the production recorded in RG-1 register found that 6051.480 sq. meter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1997)57TTJ(Hyd.)312
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Dy. CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1990-91. The only dispute in this appeal is against disallowance of the assessees claim for deduction of Rs. 17,611 under s. 80HH and Rs. 14,089 under s. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It owns a cotton press which is run on hire. It also does trading in cosmetics. In regard to its business income from cotton press, the assessee claimed deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I on the ground that the activity comprises sorting of different varieties of cotton, pressing the cotton into bales of standard weight, covering it with hessian cloth and tightening it by iron hoops. By this process, according to the assessee, the life of the fibre is extended and the cotton obtained is qualitatively different from the raw material. It was also claimed that pressed bales have different characteristics when compared to loose cotton and thus, there being the process of converting loose cotton...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1997)60ITD131(Hyd.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Dy.CIT(A) for asst. yr. 1990-91. The only dispute in this appeal is against disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 17,611 under s. 80HH and Rs. 14,089 under s. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961.2. The assessee is a registered firm. It owns a cotton press which is run on hire. It also does trading in cosmetics. In regard to its business income from cotton press, the assessee claimed deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I on the ground that the activity comprises sorting of different varieties of cotton, pressing the cotton into bales of standard weight, covering it with hessian cloth and tightening it by iron hoops. By this process, according to the assessee, the life of the fibre is extended and the cotton obtained is qualitatively different from the raw material. It was also claimed that pressed bales have different characteristics when compared to loose cotton and thus, there being the process of converting loose cot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1996)(87)ELT193TriDel
1. In this case the application was filed for stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25-9-1995. On examination of the prayer made and facts of the case it appears that the main issue can be settled at this stage itself. Therefore the main appeal is also taken up for consideration.2. The appellants manufacture iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had declared graphite electrodes and nipples as eligible inputs in the declaration filed under Rule 57G. They were however purchasing and using graphite electrodes and carbon electrodes including nipples as inputs in the manufacture of final product and had taken credit thereupon on 12-5-1994. A show cause notice was issued seeking recovery of modvat credit availed on such carbon electrodes and nipples during the period 1-12-1993 to 31-3-1994. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 55,454.27 and also imposed a penalty of Rs 5,000/-. This order was upheld...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1997)(89)ELT199Tri(Mum.)bai
1. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the registry brought to my notice a letter dated 28-6-1996 from the appellants requesting for an adjournment. However, considering the nature of the order being passed, it is not necessary to grant any adjournment and hence the appeal is taken up for hearing.2. The appeal is directed against the captioned order-in-appeal confirming the order-in-original dated 22-2-1991 of the Asstt.Commissioner of Central Excise, Sangli Divn.3. The issue involved is, whether, in granting benefit for availment of Modvat credit on the goods lying in stock on the date when the declaration under Rule 57G is filed, should be restricted to the actual duty paid or the benefit of higher notional credit contemplated under Rule 57B should also be given. There is no dispute that application under Rule 57H has already been filed seeking permission to avail of the Modvat credit on the goods lying in stock.4. Shri Talagia, the ld. JDR, submits that for the purpose of Rul...
Tag this Judgment!