Delhi Court April 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.
Atul Glass Industries (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT585TriDel
1. The point of dispute involved in the present proceedings is whether (1) glass windscreens of motor vehicles, both of toughened as well as laminated variety, and (2) insulating glass units/panels fall under Item 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff ("Other glass and glassware including tableware"), as held by the lower authorities, or under Item 68 ("All other goods, not elsewhere specified..."), as urged by the appellants.2. The impugned Order-in-Appeal held that the following three products manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under Item 23A(4) :- However, in respect of glass mirrors, the Collector (Appeals) held that the same were classifiable under Item 68. The present appeal and the cross-objection relate only to the first-mentioned three products held to be classifi-able under Item 23A(4) by the Collector (Appeals). In respect of glass mirrors, there is a separate appeal filed by the Department and the same is not the subject-matter of the present proceedings.3. Eve...
Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC272Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals involve a common point of dispute, arise out of a common order-in-appeal and pertain to the same appellants. These were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The main point of dispute involved in these three appeals is whether the multifold yarn or doubled yarn prepared by the appellants out of duty-paid cotton yarn and nylon filament yarn was liable to duty again under Item 18A/18E of the Central Excise Tariff or not. The period relevant for these appeals is from 1.3.1971 to 31.10.1976.3. It is the case of the appellants that they are manufacturers of paper makers cotton dryer felts. They buy duty-paid coarse cotton yarn and duty-paid nylon filament yarn from other producing mills. They take a few strands of cotton yarn and nylon filament yarn (the number of strands being different varieties of felts) and twist them together on a doubling machine. The resultant product is a multifold yarn having cotton yarn and nylon filam...
S.N. Sarkar and Abdul Latif Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT186TriDel
1. These two appeals arise out of a common Adjudication Order and relate to common questions of fact and law, and are being disposed of under this common order.2. On information the godown of M/s. Calcutta-Punjab Roadways in Tis Hazari, Delhi was searched and 52 bales of old garments made of synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were seized. The commission agent of the said firm was examined. Opinion was obtained from two persons as to the foreign origin of the goods, they were thereupon seized and further investigation carried out. The consignors were found to be various persons of Calcutta, the appellants being two of them. Notices were sent to them also. One, Shri Sulekh Chand made an application for release of the goods to his custody, but when notices were sent to him he did not respond. The various consignors, including these two appellants, claimed to have lawfully acquired these articles from various persons including persons who had purchased these goods through authorised auct...
New Delhi Hotels Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: (1984)9ITD824(Delhi)
1. The appeal is by the assessee and the following facts as stand reproduced in verbatim from the impugned order of the learned first appellate authority give the background of the case : The ITO completed the assessment for assessment year 1976-77 on 22-8-1979. It is true that in the assessment order there is no specific finding given by the ITO whether the company is an 'industrial company' or not presumably because no such claim was made either in the return of income or during the course of the assessment proceedings. The ITO, accordingly, treated the company as one in which the public were not substantially interested and levied the tax at the rate of 65 per cent as applicable to a closely-held non-industrial company.2. The assessee made a request to the ITO to charge correctly the rate of tax which, according to the assessee, was 60 per cent and which the ITO has charged at 65 per cent. The assessee contended that it was carrying on manufacturing activities of construction of bu...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Jay Engineering Works
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-30-1984
Reported in: [1984]149ITR297(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. By these two applications under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Commissioner has sought reference regarding the following five questions relating to assessment year 1972-73 : (In ITC No. 174/80) 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the commission payments of Rs. 6,89,236, Rs. 67,254 and Rs. 3,500 qualify for deduction under s. 35B (In ITC No. 175/80) 1. Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in holding that the commission payments of Rs. 6,89,236, Rs. 67,254 and Rs. 3,500 qualify for deduction under section 35B 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a portion of the salary paid to staff for the period they were away on foreign tour would qualify for deduction under section 35B 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cost of D. D. Stamps amounting to Rs. 6,047 would qualify for deduction under s....
Pigments and Dyestuffs Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT511TriDel
1. Appeal No. 963/81 has been filed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 19-3-1981. Appeal No. 1372/83 has been filed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 16-3-1983.As common questions of fact and law are involved, both the appeals were heard together. In Appeal No. 963/81, appellants imported Phenyl Alpha Napthylamine during 1974 under Bill of Entry No. 976/84 dated 4.11.1974 and the consignment was released under ex-bond Bill of Entry Cash No.1108 and 1109 dated 10-1-1978. The Customs authorities assessed the goods under Item No. 281.C.T. charging customs duty at 60% + 15%. The goods were cleared in early January, 1978. On 16-5-1978, the Asstt.Collector of Customs, Gr.(V) issued a 'less-charge' memo directing the appellants to pay Rs. 16,068.65 towards duty short-levied erroneously.The appellants submitted the reply on 20-5-1978, informing the Deptt.that the item imported by them was Dye-intermediate used in the manufacture of Basic Dyes...
Anand Synthochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT583TriDel
1. I his appeal filed by M/s. Anand Synthochem Pvt. Ltd., Bombay against order-in-appeal No. 1695/79 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellant manufacture sodium lauryl sulphate. This product is made to Indian Pharmacopoeia standard and is supplied to factories which use it as an ingredient in the manufacture of drugs and formulations. It claims that this product is a drug and must be classified under Item 68 CET and be given the exemption available to the drugs under Notification 55/75-CE. The Central Excise, however, assessed the chemical under Item 15 A A as a surface active agent because it has surface-activity. The appellant says that though it has surface-active properties, it is an ingredient in a drug formulation and deserves classification as a drug rather than as a surface-active substance.3. The learned counsel for M/s. Anand Synthochem Pvt. Ltd. argued before the Tribunal that it is its use that should govern its assessment. The chemical ...
Indian Petrochemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1985)LC43Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd., against Ordcr-in-Appeal No. A.-2276/BD/839/82 dated 31-1-1983 passed by the Appellate Collector, Bombay, The appeal by I.C.P.L. is dated 4-3-1983.The dispute arose when the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Div. IV, Baroda passed his order F. No. V. 15A(3) 154/MP/82, dt. 30-9-1982- Order-in-Original 31/1982, in which he ordered that the poly-acrylonitrile powder produced by I.P.C.L. factory was assessable to duty as 'other high polymers' under Item 15A(1), CET.2. M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd., manufacture acrylic fibre from acrylonitrile by a process of co-polymerisation wtth methyl aery late and dye-acceptor monomers. The Asstt. Collector held that the poly-acrylonitrile powder was not commercially known as artificial or synthetic resin plastic material and was not classifiable under sub-item (1) of item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. However when Item 15A for the Central Excise Tariff was recast in accorda...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Saran Engineering Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT568TriDel
1. The Government of India issued a show cause notice under Section 26(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 proposing to set aside the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta bearing No. 239/BR/81, dated 19-9-81. These proceedings have been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of the provisions of Section 35P(2) ibid.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents paid duty on re-shelling of Roller Shafts under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. By a letter dated 29-2-80, they contested the duty liability on such re-shelled product on the ground that it does not involve manufacture of any new article. The Assistant Collector negatived this and held that re-shelling of roller shaft was "job work" on which excise duty was leviable under Notfn. No, 119/75, dated 30-4-75.However, by the impugned order, the order of the Assistant Collector was set aside on the ground that no new article with a distinct name and character is manufactured and he...
Shri S.P. Rateja Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1984
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT727TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 21-4-1983.2. The appellant arrived at Palam airport from Singapore on 3-2-1981.He had booked two packages with the Airlines but on arrival at Delhi only one package was found. The second package had not arrived and was missing. A Landing Certificate (copy at Annexure F of the Paper Book) was issued by the Air Customs Superintendent. This indicated clearance of goods worth Rs. 500/-. The free allowance to the extent of Rs. 500/- was availed of by the appellant. The second package was found kept where the unaccompanied baggage is stocked. On 17-2-1981 the second package was opened in the absence of the appellant. The panchnama was prepared, a copy of which has been placed on the file. This shows that 10 items, including sarees, cassette recorders, pocket transistors, etc., were found in the suitcase. These goods were totally valued at Rs. 6,000/- according to the Panchnama. The lower author...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »