Delhi Court April 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 102 results (0.021 seconds)Stretchlon Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1737DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Stretchlon Private Limited, Bombay (hereinafter referred as the appellant) filed a revision petition dated 14th September, 1978 before the Central Government on 20th September, 1978 as per Revenue Registry's stamp on record, against Order in Appeal No. S/49/286/77R dated 29th of August, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay in relation to the Order No. S/4-C-226/76-R dated 29th of January, 1977 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The said revision petition came to be transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 and is accordingly being disposed of as such.2. Shri P.G. Gokhale, Advocate, made a serious grievance that the Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bombay simply did not appreciate the facts submitted before him and unjustifiably refused to condone delay of about 26 days in filing the appeal before him for which there were solid valid reasons. It shall be in the fitness of things if the relevant portion o...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1759DTri(Delhi)
1. The appellant imported a certain quantity of Matrix Board Stereo Fionas through the Port of Bombay in the year 1976. The goods were classified by the Customs authorities under heading No. 48 01/21(1) of the 1st Schedule to the Cutoms Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Customs Tariff Schedule) and charged to Customs duty at 100% ad val (Basic duty) plug 20% ad val. (Auxiliary duty) and 30% ad val.(countervailing duty). After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the appellants filed a refund claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay on the ground that the goods should have been assessed under heading No. 84.34 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and not under 48.01/21 and that countervailing duty should have been charged at Rs. 1.60 per kg. as against 30% ad val. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the goods being in sheet form and being not impressed Matrix Board, they fell outside the scope of heading No. 84.34. He ...
Tag this Judgment!Sapt Textiles Products (India) Vs. Appellate Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1740Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Sapt Textiles Products (India) Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the exporter, filed a revision application against the Order No.C27/161/74, dated 27th November, 1976, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, which has been transferred to the Tribunal as an Appeal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The exporters were issued a demand notice intimating that the assessments in respect of the shipping bills for the period 1st September, 1969 to 31st October, 1970, had been finalised and that there was a short levy of Rs. 11,209.54. The exporter resisted the recovery and the assessment finally framed on the ground that commission paid by the exporter to the foreign agents was to be deducted from the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment notwithstanding the provision of Section 14. A separate ground was also taken that since the Bond could not be said to have been continued, short levy recovery was beyond the competence of the Customs Authoritie...
Tag this Judgment!Hansalaya Properties Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)4ITD475(Delhi)
1. Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to deduction of Rs. 2,01,000 or Rs. 36,61,625 as the cost of the land on which the multi-storeyed building was constructed on the following grounds: b. The land having been brought in by Shri H.R. Vadhera as stock-in-trade or capital asset c. If brought in as a capital asset, then on its being converted into stock-in-trade 2. Whether there is any evidence of on-money being charged and if so, whether addition sustained by Judicial Member is justified Between the learned Members who heard the appeals originally, the points of difference were initially referred by the President to himself under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), for hearing on the aforesaid points.2. At the time of hearing, however, the assessee's counsel as well as the senior departmental representative raised preliminary objections as to the formulation of the points of difference. The assessee's counsel also contended that the order of the learned Judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Driplex Water Engineering and ors. Vs. Union of India Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(5)DRJ200
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) We had heard the counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents at length. At the end of the arguments we had announced that we were dismissing the petition but as there was no time left the judgment was not dictated in Court. We are now giving the reasons for dismissing the writ petition.(2) This petition challenges the decision made by the Standing Committee of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 2 to award the contract for Water Treatment for Captive Plant at Angul to respondent No. 3 at a firm price of Rs. 14.03 crores on turn-key basis. (3) The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of erection/installation and commissioning of water treatment plants and allied works. The petitioner is a small scale unit registered with National Small Scale Industries Corporation Limited. Respondent No. 2 is National Aluminium Company Ltd. (NALCO) which is a Government of India Undertaking. Respondent No. 3, M/s. Bharat Process & Me...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Explosives Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC949DTri(Delhi)
1. These are 5 revision applications (hereinafter called "appeals") filed before the Central Government which under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962, stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if they were appeals presented before the Tribunal. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is the same, they were all heard together on 14.4.83, and this common order is passed covering all the 5 appeals.2. The issue involved in all the cases is as regards the classification of Blasting Soluble Nitro Cotton (referred 10 for short as "BSNC") under the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, which was in force at the material time. It is the claim of the appellants that the goods should have been classified under Item 87 of the said schedule, whereas the customs authorities had classified them under Item 82(3)(a) Ibid. For convenience the descriptions in the two items are reproduced below: 82(3)(a)Artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials in any form, whethe...
Tag this Judgment!The Director of Telegraphs, Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1265Tri(Delhi)
1. The case was heard on 14-4-1983. The appellants seek reassessment of Flexwell Waveguides and their accessories, which were imported together in one consignment and which are component parts of microwave equipments for transmission and reception of telephonic conversation, under item 73(13) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff read with exemption notification No. 147/58-Cus. Their claim was rejected at the lower levels as unsubstantiated. During the hearing before us, they produced a catalogue of the goods imported and explained the nature of their claim. The Department's representative wanted time to go through the catalogue. We went through the relevant portion of the catalogue, which was a short one and carefully considered the appellants' submissions. We hold that the subject goods were entitled to be assessed at the lower rate under item 73(13) ICT read with exemption notification No. 147/58-Cus and accordingly we allow, this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants...
Tag this Judgment!international Auto Suppliers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC667DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek reassessment of water pumps spindle bearings imported by them under Heading 84.62(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The goods were assessed by the Customs under Heading 84.62(2).The Appellate Collector held that both these headings were inappropriate and that the subject goods were more correctly classifiable under Heading 84.10(3). In order to facilitate a proper understanding of the matter, we reproduce below all these three sub-headings:- (2) Ball bearings of all types not exceeding 60 millimetres bore diameter" "84.10 Pumps (including motor pumps and turbo pumps) for liquids, whether or not fitted with measuring devices; liquid elevators of bucket, chain, screw, band and similar kinds: (3) Fuel, oil or water pumps for internal combustion piston engines (including fuel injection pumps)" 3. The appellants showed a sample of integral shaft ball bearing and the catalogue of this article. They stated that the same article was also commercially known as spindle ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Illa Dalmia
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD393(Delhi)
1. By these reference applications, presented on 16-2-1983 and made under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act'), the Commissioner, requires the Tribunal to draw up statements of the cases and refer to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, for its esteemed opinion, the following common question in relation to all the years under reference, claiming it to be a question of law and said to arise out of the order dated 30-10-1982 made in Miscellaneous Application No. 218 (Delhi) of 1981 arising out of WT Appeal Nos. 1729 to 1733 (Delhi) of 1980 in relation to the assessment years 1971-72 to 1975-76 decided vide orders dated 12-11-1981 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in recalling back the order which had been decided on merit and after due consideration of all the facts, to be decided again especially in view of well settled proposition of law that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or reverse its earlier order as it...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC991DTri(Delhi)
2. In this case, the appellants seek reassessment of weld wires at the lower rate of duty under Item 63 (25) of the erstwhile Indian Customs tariff. The lower authorities have rejected their claim and maintained the assessment made under Item 63 (30) ICT on the ground that the subject weld wires contained 15% chromium and were, therefore, steel alloy wires and not steel wires. The appellants stated that the subject wires had a diameter of 2.4 mm. They attacked assessment of the subject wires under Item 63 (30) on the ground that this item covered only rods, bars and flats and not wires. On referring to the Tariff, we find force in their point which even the Department's representative conceded after discussion. The arguments of the two sides thereafter centred on the point whether Item 63 (25) or Item 63 (28) would be more appropriate for re-classification of the goods. Reverting to the lower authorities' objection to classifying the goods under Item 63 (25), the appellants stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!