Delhi Court March 1984 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
income-tax Officer Vs. Espi Agricultural Machineries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD224(Delhi)
1. The revenue is aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues]..5. The assessee-company had paid salary of Rs. 48,000 to two directors and perquisites in the shape of house rent and water, gas and electricity totalled Rs, 24,322. The said payment was in cash. The ITO allowed Rs. 9,600 being one-fifth of salary of Rs. 48,000 and disallowed balance of Rs. 14,722.6. The Commissioner (Appeals) following the Bombay Special Bench decision in ITO v. Sapt Textiles Products India Ltd. [1982] 1 SOT 269 as also Addl. CIT v. Tarun Commercial Mills Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 745 (Guj.) and CIT v. Patiala Flour Mills Co. (P.) Ltd. [1980] 123 ITR 7 (Punj. & Har.) held that Section 40(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was applicable in the case of directors and, therefore, only the overall limits of Rs. 72,000 applied and not the separate limit for salary and perquisites under Section 40A(5) of the Act.7. Th...
Rogkdril (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT497TriDel
1. Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-79 exempted all excisable goods, on which the duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff had been used, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on Item 68 goods, subject to the procedure laid down in the notification. This notification was amended on 28-2-82 by Notification No. 105/82-C.E. to the effect that the exemption became available only where Item 68 goods were used as raw material and component parts in the manufacture of finished excisable goods. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to the exemption in respect of Item 68 duty paid on graphite rods which they used for manufacturing diamond drill bits, both before and after the amendment dated 28-2-82.2. The following paragraph extracted from the Order-in-Original in this case explains the process of manufa...
Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT746TriDel
1. The revision application filed before the Government which on transfer is being treated as an appeal.The appellants inter alia manufacture copper and copper alloy castings and aluminium castings. Prior to 30-7-1976 the appellants had been filing classification lists from time to time classifying the items under tariff item 26A(ia) and 27-a(ii) respectively. The residuary Tariff Item 68 came into effect from 1-3-1975. The appellants continued to file the classification lists under Tariff Item 26A(ia) and 27-a(ii) respectively. The appellants also state that their products were entitled to exemption under notifications 119/76 and 77/72. The classification lists filed by the appellants have been approving and their products were declared subject to "Nil Duty". During the last week of July, 1976 the appellants received a letter from the Superintendent Central Excise Range-Ill, Division-IV, Bombay calling upon by them to file classification list under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Colle...
Harmohan Das Bagai Vs. T.P. Gupta
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1984
Reported in: 1984RLR625
M.L. Jain, J.(1) The appellant Harmohan Das Bagai took on rent a shop in the ground floor in a building at 5, Arakashan Road, Pahar Ganj. A room in the first floor above the shop was taken for purposes of residence on 7.1.55, at Rs.70 p.m. One more room was taken on the first floor on rent on 1.9.56 at Rs. 50 p. m. An eviction petition was filed against him on 15.4.68 u/s 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act). In the W/S, he appears to have contended that there were two tenancies ; the first one was taken for residential cum-commercial purposes, while the second was taken exclusively for business purposes. The petition ended in a compromise and was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.1.73. According to the compromise, the rent was increased to Rs. 120.00 for the first tenancy and Rs. 80 for the second ; in all Rs. 200.00. A receipt was issued on 29.1.73 for the flat in the name of Mohan Bagai. On the receipt issued on 14.5.75, the words 'residential flat' has been written on ...
Union Carbide India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT505TriDel
1. These are fourteen revision applications filed by M/s. Union Carbide of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the appellants) before the Government of India (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962) against the order-in-appeal Nos. 211 to 220/80, dated 18-2-1980 and Nos. 363-366/80, dated 29-2-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that the appellants are manufacturers of Electric Dry Batteries and for the manufacture of Dry Cell batteries, manganese ore and E.M.D.(Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide), an electrochemically processed chemical compound were imported. Both manganese ore and E.M.D. were assessed by the Customs authorities under the same item of the tariff i.e. 25.01/32(3) of the Customs Tariff as 'Battery Grade Manganese Dioxide'. As per the appellants these two articles are two totally different materials one being an ore and the other being a c...
Kalsi Tyres (Chandigarh) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1984
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT631TriDel
1. This appeal had been originally preferred as a revision petition to the Government and had been 'transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, and is being disposed of as an appeal under this order.2. On 21.1.1977 Central Excise Officers visited the premises of a firm by name, Auto Life Rubber Industries and an associate thereof by name, Raman Rubber (India) and noticed that these firms had been engaged in the manufacture of rubber cushion compound/tread rubber since 1974 without obtaining a Central Excise Licence. A statement was obtained from the proprietor of Auto Life Rubber Industries disclosing that goods valued at over Rs. 99,000/- had been manufactured without payment of Central Excise duty. Appellant had also received supplies of such manufactured product. 14.5 kgs. of such goods were recovered from the premises of Auto Life Rubber Industries. It was also found that this appellant had engaged Auto Life Rubber Industries for manufact...
Crystic Resins (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)(19)ELT285TriDel
1. This is an appeal that arose from the order-in-appeal No. CE/DLH/83 dated 28-3-1983 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. That order of the Appellate Collector arose in turn from the order-in-original No. V(15A)30/2/72/Val./Pt. 2946 dated 27-3-1922 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. III, Faridabad.2. The dispute arose in the assessment of polyester resin under concessional rate of duty provided by Notification No. 7/80, dated 27-2-1980.3. Much arguments were presented before the Tribunal on the merits and demerits of the action of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector. But when we refer to the show-cause notice, we find that it is so bad a piece of work that the only right thing to do is to pronounce it invalid and of no effect and any action based upon it should be held to be null and void.4. This show cause notice call upon M/s. Crystic Resins, the Appellants, to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Divis...
Basant Pran Electric Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC397Tri(Delhi)
1. These revision applications filed before the government of India, (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central excises and Salt Act, 1944) against the order-in-appeal No.438-439/CO/78, dated 31-8-1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Centreal excise, calcutta.2. M/s Basant Pran electric Company Private Limited, Calcutta (hereinafter called the Appellants) manufactured and cleared 13461 856 Kgs. and 296.669 Kgs. of varnished Paper during the periods from 7-10-1968 to 16-12-1974 and from 17-10-1974 to 31-8-1975 respectively without obtainining the Central excise licence and without payment of excise duty.3. superintendent of Central excise issused show cause notices to the appellants for violation of Rules 174 and 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and demanded Rs. 12.70.48 and Rs. 474.75 on the said excisable goods under Rule 9(2) and also asked to show cause why penalty should not be imposed n them under Rule 173Q of the central Excise Rules, ...
Card Board Box Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT494TriDel
1. This is a revision filed before the Government of India which on transfer is being treated as appeal.2. The appellants have a very special unit at their Colootola Factory for printing paper and paper board cartons which, according to them, is purely a specialised job of printing. They claim that the same is outside the scope and purview of Item 68. Even otherwise, in Notification 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-75 it is mentioned at Sl. No. 13 as follows : "13. All products of the printing industry including newspapers and printed periodicals." The industry of making printed cartons by the appellants should be considered as nothing but "products of the printing industries". The cartons are made exclusively on orders received from the customers and "tailormade" as per their specifications. There is no finished product of commercial value and the goods are not "excisable goods" under Section 2(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In revision Order No. 2057 dated 5-12-77, the Governmen...
Allied Metal and Engineering Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-1984
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT491TriDel
1. This is a revision application which on transfer is being treated as an appeal.2. The dispute relates to classification. The appellant are manufacturers of hinges from hot rolled steel strips. They are a small scale unit and the process of manufacture consists of the following :- "Strips and sheets are purchased from open market and from steel plants. The sheets are cut into small strips measuring 3 to 4' in length and a width of about 3 to 6", depending on the size of the units to be manufactured. These strips are then washed in acid and passed over small rollers to achieve uniform thickness. The strips are then cut into small pieces and the hinges are completed by drilling necessary holes. There is no dispute that the hinges are exciseable under Item 68." 3. The Assistant Collector by his order dated 18-1-1978 held that cold rolled strips are being manufactured by the appellants and these are liable to excise duty. The appellants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Collector by hi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »