Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT429Tri(Chennai)
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the demand of duty in respect of the structural material and structures viz., columns, beams, purlins, trusses, ladders, walkways. The appellants fabricated these out of duty paid angles and other materials. After the authorities learnt about the manufacturing activity being carried out by the appellants as above, they were asked to take out a licence. They were expected thereafter to comply with the necessary Central Excise requirements in regard to the item which were being fabricated by them. They, however, wrote to the authorities that the activities carried out by them in terms of a contract entered into between them and the Vizag Steel Plant Project did not amount to manufacture and, therefore, they were not required to pay duty. However, the authorities found later that the appellants had fabricated the items in question and cleared the same without payment of duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellants and it was all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(JP.)648
Both these appeals by the department are directed against the combined order of the learned Deputy. Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18-3-1991 for assessment years 1983-84 and 1987-88. As common issues are involved in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. The first ground raised in the appeal is against the direction to value the property in question as per rule 1BB ignoring the fact that the said rule was not applicable to the impugned property and that the said property was acquired by the Appropriate Authority in assessment year 1987-88 for Rs. 40,00,000. The assessee is a specified HUF and besides having other movable and immovable assets, it also had 1/2 share in House No. 69W, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The assessee declared its value at Rs. 2,50,000 in its return. In the course of assessment proceedings, relying on certain judicial pronouncements, it was contended by the assessee that the value of the impugned property shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1999)(113)ELT316Tri(Mum.)bai
1. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the captioned order wherein the Commissioner of Central Excise had confirmed the demand of Rs. 75,23,185/- as duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,11,202/- under Section 11AC of the Act. He has also imposed, by the said impugned order, a penalty of Rs. 30.00 lacs under Rule 173Q of the Rules.2. The ld. Counsel Shri P.V. Patankar, arguing the appeals, stated that the appellants are a public limited company producing iron and steel machinery etc. falling under Chapters 72, 73, 84 and 86. In respect of such goods, the appellants got certain advances towards the products.It is contended by the appellants that these are advance towards the contract price is normally charged for these goods. They also stated that part payment of such price is taken before delivery of goods with a view to compensate for cost incurred and ensure fulfilment of the contract by the buyer. They also emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These cross-appeals by the assessees and the Revenue are directed against different orders of CIT(A). The major common controversy involved in most of appeals relates to assessment of moneylending business for which documents were seized in search carried by the Revenue on 8th August, 1995, in the premises of three brothers namely, Shri Babu Ram, Shri Gian Chand and Shri Prabhu Dayal, all sons of late Shri Shiv Charan Das. These brothers were admittedly carrying on kirana business (separately) at village Dhaunj, Distt. Faridabad, and were assessed in individual capacity relating to that business. No income from moneylending business was shown in the returns submitted by the brothers till the date of search. At the time of search, Shri Babu Ram and his brothers as also their sons admitted that they were carrying on moneylending business but did not remember whether income from above source was shown. However, during the course of assessment proceedings taken subsequent to the raid, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(102)ELT739TriDel
1. These three appeals (one by the assessees and two by the Revenue) involve the same points and, therefore, are taken up for disposal together in this single order.2. The assessees manufactured "Salbutamol Inhaler". In the Inhaler, the drug is packed in a metal container which is fitted in the outer plastic housing.The Inhaler contains a spray device using metered valves which ensures a single dose to be delivered on pressure being applied irrespective of the duration of the application of pressure. The assessees imported such valves. The assessees claimed classification under Heading 8481.80 of the CTA, 1975 with benefit of Notification No. 153/86. The Customs, however, classified the product under Heading 9619.10. The refund claim of the assessees on the ground that classification under Heading 8481.80 was more appropriate, was rejected by the Assistant Collector.In appeal proceedings, the classification was held to be under 8481.80 but the benefit of notification was denied. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(96)ELT707TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is the eligibility of the components of the video cassette to the Modvat credit when used in the manufacture of blank video cassette. In Para 4 of his order, the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta had held as under :- 4. I have considered the matter and I am convinced that the appellants have a case on merits. I find Rule 57 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 177/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, provides for Modvat credit in respect of the specified in the used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, the only restriction being that such final product is not exempted or chargeable to nil rate of duty. In terms of the said Notification No. 177/86 (supra), so long as the inputs and final product are covered by the specific chapter specified therein, duty paid on, the inputs would be available as Modvat credit. In the instant case, "inputs - Components of video cassette" -and final pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(98)ELT528TriDel
1. All these appeals involving common question of law and facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. Before proceeding with the matter, applications for change in the cause title by substituting M/s. F.G.P. Ltd. for M/s. CEAT Tyres of India Limited were considered and allowed.3. The appellants imported 'Blades for Chopped Strand Cutter'. These blades are used for cutting glass fibre into chopped strands. These were assessed to duty under CTH 8208.90 read with 8479.89. They claimed refund on the ground that goods were assessable under 8441.10 CTA and under 8479.89. They also subsequently requested for assessment under Notification No. 153/86 and Notification No. 313/86 and alternative claim was made for classification under 8464.90 in regard to the main machine of which the impugned goods constitutes a part.4. The learned Advocate submits that they accepted the claim for the impugned goods under 8208.90. However, the main machine would be classifiable under 84...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Reported in : (1998)65ITD48(Mum.)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT for asst. yr. 1987-88.2. The short question in this appeal is regarding the allowability of interest paid on the foreign borrowing, which was disallowed by the AO on the ground that the tax thereon was not deducted by the assessee as provided under s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. The assessee's contention is that the interest payable by the assessee is not taxable under the Act, in the hands of the non-resident either under s. 5 or s. 9 of the Act, and that the payment was not made in India and, therefore, the question of deduction of tax and payment of tax thereon under s. 195 does not arise. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of C. G. Krishnaswami Naidu vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 686 (Mad); decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. (1983) 143 ITR 236 (Bom) and in the case of CIT vs. Cooper Engineering Ltd. (1968) 68 ITR 457 (Bom), and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1998)60TTJ(JP.)716
The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 25th August, 1992, for asst. yr. 1986-87. In the first ground, the assessee has challenged the very legality of the assessment order on the ground that the notice under s. 148 was illegal.2. The assessee is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking. For the year under consideration, the due date for filing the return was 31st July, 1986. The due date for filing a belated return under s. 139(4) was 31st March, 1989. The assessee submitted its return showing nil income on 19th June, 1989. Second return of income, purportedly a revised return was filed on 30th April, 1991, declaring an income of Rs. 12,47,860.Notice under s. 148 was issued on 13th May, 1991. In response to this notice, no return was filed but the assessee, vide its letter dt. 31st May, 1991, informed the Department about having filed the revised return and also the earlier return. After taking note of both the returns filed, the assessment was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur
Reported in : (1998)64ITD356(JP.)
1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A), dt. 25th August, 1992, for asst. yr. 1986-87. In the first ground, the assessee has challenged the very legality of the assessment order on the ground that the notice under s. 148 was illegal.2. The assessee is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking. For the year under consideration, the due date for filing the return was 31st July, 1986. The due date for filing a belated return under s. 139(4) was 31st March, 1989. The assessee submitted its return showing nil income on 19th June, 1989. Second return of income, purportedly a revised return was filed on 30th April, 1991, declaring an income of Rs. 12,47,860.Notice under s. 148 was issued on 13th May, 1991. In response to this notice, no return was filed but the assessee, vide its letter dt. 31st May, 1991, informed the Department about having filed the revised return and also the earlier return. After taking note of both the returns filed, the assessment wa...
Tag this Judgment!