Delhi Court April 1984 Judgments

Premier Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT156TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay dated 25th August, 1976. Originally it was preferred as a revision application before the Central Government but on transfer to this Tribunal; tile same is being, disposed of as an appeal.2. At the relevant time, the appellants were manufacturing air-conditioners of different capacities. They were selling these air-conditioners through two modes of sale, namely, (1) sales to the dealers; and (2) sates to the DGS&D. The present appeal relates to valuation in respect of sale to dealers. It is the appellants' case that they were asked' to file their price-list in proforma V which they did under protest. Under column 5 of the price-list, which is meant for showing deductions claimed from the price specified in column 3 ibid, a sum of Rs. 550/- was shown as "Dealers Coverage" in respect of items 1 and 2 and Rs. 650/- in respect of items 3 & 4. It is the appellants' contention that the ...

Om Prakash Baldev Kishan Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ164

G.C. Jain, J.(1) These two cross-appeals (F.A.O. (O.S.) No. 14 of 1980 and F.A.O. (O.S) No. 32 of 1980) arise out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated November 20, 1979. (2) Messrs 0m Parkash Baldev Krishan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Contractor') submitted a tender for 'Provision of Married Accommodation for CPL's/AC's Flt. Sgt./MWO's/WO's/Near Delhi'. The tender was accepted and the work was awarded to the contractor by the Union of India vide agreement No. CEDZ-8 of 1972-73, dated August 21, 1973. Clauses 9, 26, 62(0) and 70 of the General Conditions of contract and clause 3.1 of the Special Conditions of Contract, which are relevant for the decision of these appeals, read as under : '9.Suspension of Work. The Contractor shall suspend execution of the Works or any part of parts thereof, whenever called upon in writing by the Garrison Engineer to do so, and shall not resume work thereon until so directed in writing by the Garrision Engineer. The Contractor will be ...

India Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT166TriDel

1.This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The case relates to the classification of tyre flaps manufactured by the appellants and the consequential demand of duty on removals for the period from 20-6-80 to 19-12-80.3. The facts in brief are that the appellants are manufacturers of tyre flaps. These are in the nature of a reinforcement for a tyre when used with a vehicle which has to carry heavy loads. The appellants manufacture only tyre flaps and not the outer covers of the tyres or the inner tubes.4. Item 16 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as in force from 1-3-75, has the following main description :- " "Tyres" means a pneumatic tyre in the manufacture of which rubber is used and includes the inner tube, the tyre flap and the outer cover of such ...

S.P. Kumria and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT142TriDel

1. M/s. S.P. Kumria & Sons, Lucknow have filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original Norn. P (13/82) 19 of 1983, dated 22-7-83, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellants have been manufacturing "Steel Hinges in different sizes' since November, 1959. They have been exporting part of their products to their customers in Nepal. The total value of such clearances during the period 26-9-1979 to 19-3-81 amounted to Rs. 1,84,272.98 paise. The appellants have urged that they are small scale unit. Since the goods manufactured by them fall under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, their goods were exempted from payment of Central Excise duty under Notifications No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-79 and 105/80-C.E., dated 16-9-1980. They were also exempted from the licensing control under Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-78, as amended by Notification No. 2/81-C.E., dated 17-1-1981. They stated that they had filed necessary declarations and their total...

Delhi Kanodia TIn and Drum Factory Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)LC456Tri(Delhi)

1. We have heard Sh. S.K. Chaterjee, Consultant for the appellants in support of the appeal and Sh. K. V. Kunhikrishnan, D.R. for the Department in opposition.2. The short point for decision in this case relates to assessment of Item III of the Bill of Entry Cash No. 2591 dated 12-3-1980, namely, "Complete set of spare Dies for the Press Titan". One set tools for the machines and one set change parts for intermediate Crowns. The other claims relating to re-assessment of Valves of Pressure Valves and Relays declared as Items XIII and XVI are not pressed before us and therefore, we are concerned only with the claim for re-assessment only of 'Dies sets' imported by the appellants under the Bill of Entry referred to above.3. Sh. S.K. Chaterjee, Consultant appearing for the appellants has cited the decision of this Tribunal-Order No. B-976/83, dated 24-10-1983 in the matter of Purewall and Associates Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 490 (Tribunal) Bombay.Ac...

Usha Alloys and Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT279TriDel

1. The Revision Application under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 264/BR/81, dated 28-9-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta has been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal, as if it were an appeal in terms of Section 35P (2) of the Act.2. The appellants have a factory at Jamshedpur in which they manufacture steel ingots and semi-finished steel with the aid of electric arc furnace from steel melting scrap. The factory went into production in 1974 and was manufacturing only steel ingots, which were made from duty paid steel melting scrap and were exempted from duty under Notification No. 66/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973. This provided that steel ingots were fully exempt, if made from fresh un-used melting scrap on which appropriate duty had been paid provided no proforma credit or set-off have been availed of. If fresh un-used duty paid melting scrap was used, in admixture with other material, the exempti...

Hindustan Cables Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT180TriDel

1. These three appeals arise under the following circumstances M/s.Hindustan Cables Ltd., a Government of India Company, hereinafter called the appellants is engaged in the business of manufacturing telecommunication cables falling under T.I. No. 33-B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter call the Central Excise Tariff) at its factory at Rupnarayan-pur, West Bengal. Appellants' factory possesses Central Excise licence for manufacture of telecommunication cables. Telecommunication cables manufactured by the appellants are required to be sheathed for the purpose of preventing ingress of moisture in the cables by means of lead alloy, which is nothing but lead mixed with 0.85% of antimony.Such mixing is done by melting lead with antimony. The appellants claim that lead itself contains certain percentage of antimony but for the purpose of increasing the hardness further, 0.85% of antimony is mixed with lead by the process of melting the materials. The...

Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Indo-austro Corporation ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1985)47CTR(Del)18; [1984]149ITR329(Delhi)

Chadha, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') raises the following question for the opinion of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in allowing the claim of development rebate in respect of assessment year 1968-69 ?' 2. The facts briefly are these. The assessment year under reference is 1968-69, of which the relevant previous year ended on May 31, 1967. the assessed is a private limited company doing business in building materials. The assessed installed some new machinery and plant in the accounting periods relevant to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. It had, however, not created any development rebate reserve against development rebate to which it was entitled because there was a loss as per the books of the assessed. Even according to the assessments made by the income-tax authorities, there were losses for the assessments years 1962-63, 1963-64,...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Durga Enterprises (P.) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1985]154ITR585(Delhi)

S.S. Chadha, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department, raises the following question for the opinion of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to claim development rebate for the assessment year 1956-66 without creating development rebate reserve ?' 2. The facts giving rise to this reference are these. M/s. Durga Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., the assessed is a company which manufactures insulwool, glass-wool and refractories. For the assessment year 1665-66 (accounting year ended October 31, 1964), it had claimed development rebate in respect of certain assets installed in the relevant accounting year. The ITO rejected the claim on the ground that no development rebate reserve had been created, that the assessed had filed a return declaring a loss of Rs. 2,04,404 for the relevant assessment year...

Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Metal Forging P. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Chadha, J. 1. This reference under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department raises the following question for the opinion of the court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessed was entitled to the carry forward of the development rebate claimed for the assessment year 1966-67 to be adjusted against the profits of the assessment year 1967-68 ?' 2. The facts briefly are these. The assessed is a private limited company which carries on the business of iron and steel forging. For the assessment year 1966-67 (accounting year ended April 30, 1965). It had claimed a development rebate of Rs. 15,121 but this was disallowed on the ground that the assessed had not created any development rebate reserve for the purpose. For this year, the assessed had suffered a net loss of Rs. 3,006 as per its books and the loss an finally assessed by the Revenue was...