Delhi Court December 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 57 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Hico Products Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(7)ECC40
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Hico Products Ltd., (the respondent before us) imported a consignment of spherical glass flasks of hundred litres capacity. The respondent claimed classification of the goods for the purpose of basic duty of customs under heading 70.17/18 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Import Tariff Schedule) and for the purpose of additional duty of customs under item No. 23A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the CET). The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the goods were industrial glassware falling under heading No. 70.21 ("other articles of glass") read with item No. 23A(4) of the CET and assessed the goods to duty accordingly. The respondent subsequently claimed refund of the part of the duty on the ground that the goods were meant for use in their research and development laboratory and as such were laboratory glassware....
Tag this Judgment!Sohan Nayyar Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)19ITD687(Delhi)
1. Facts briefly stated and material for the purposes of the present appeal are that the assessee was a tenant in the residential house-immovable property commonly known as R-576, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 180 since September 1960 under Shri Mahesh Chander Dewan and Shri Surinder Nath Dewan, sons of Shri Bhim Sen Dewan as landlords. Proceedings for eviction of the tenant (the assessee) were taken against him by the landlords (it is evidenced by a photostat copy of statutory Form No. A of Rules under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) as on 4-9-1975. The proceedings are claimed to have resulted in favour of the tenant (the assessee). Thereafter, on 16-2-1979 the following arrangements are claimed to have been agreed to as between the assessee on the one side and his landlords, viz., Shri Mahesh Chander Dewan and Shri Surinder Nath Dewan, on the other side : Received with thanks from Sohan Nayyar of R-576, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, the sum of rupees four th...
Tag this Judgment!Bengal Ingot Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC678Tri(Delhi)
1. Originally preferred as a revision application before the Central Government, on transfer to this Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an appeal and being disposed of accordingly. This appeal is directed against order dated 19-1-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported one spectrometer complete with spares and ancilliaries under B/E No. 1-982 dated 25-5-1977 and cleared the same for home consumption on 20-6-1977 after payment of customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,92,221.19P. After the goods had been removed to the appellants' premises, the same were got surveyed by the insurance company in the presence of the local agent of the foreign supplier. The insurance survey revealed that the equipment had been -extensively damaged. It would appear that on the advice of the manufacturers' local representative, the appellants exported the goods under S/Bill No.A-1537 dated 28-1-1978 for re-importatio...
Tag this Judgment!Rotopack Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT604TriDel
1. When an aluminium foil has paid the duty under Item 27(c) of the Central Excise, tariff it cannot be required to pay that duty again.This is on account of the tariff item or rather sub-item itself under which aluminium foil is excised. The item runs :- "Foils (whether or not embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed or packed with paper of other reinforcing material) of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm".2. The item does not provide for duty on each of the varieties of aluminium foils viz. coated, printed, perforated backed etc. It provides that the duty under that head shall be charged on the foil "whether or not" it is embossed, coated, printed etc. etc. Thus no factory can claim its foil was coated or was printed, or was perforated, and so was not assessable under the head foil. The words embossed, cut to shape, perforated, coated, printed do not list items of goods to be assessed individually ; they do not sanction duty from one process to anot...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC657Tri(Delhi)
1. As all these appeals raise a common question for determination, though the periods and the relevant Finance Acts relating to the different periods may be different, all these appeals were heard together.2. The Indian Oil Corporation had exported certain petroleum products to Nepal without payment of duty under Bond claiming to be entitled to do so in terms of notification No. MF (DR) 151/81 dated 29-7-81 issued under Rule 13(2) of Central Excise rules, 1944. Subsequently, various show cause notices were issued as to why special excise duty should not be demanded from them in respect of such exports. They replied denying liability relying on the notification mentioned supra. Their denial of liability was rejected by the Assistant Collectors concerned. Their appeal against the said orders were rejected by the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 27-5-1985. It is against the said order that these 11 appeals have been filed. Apart from claiming that no special excise duty was payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT667TriDel
1. Appeal No. 213/79 has originally been filed as a revision application before the Government of India, which on transfer to this Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal. As common questions of facts and law are involved in all the three appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The appeals are against the orders of the Appellate Collector dated 17-10-1978.2. The appellants manufacture 200 varieties of synthetic organic dyes liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 14-D. Amongst the various varieties manufactured by them there are 24 products in respect of which the appellants have obtained 'know-how' from a foreign company known as M/s. CIBA Ltd., located in Basle, Switzerland. The said 24 products are, inter alia sold to M/s. CIBA Geigy of India Ltd. (hereinafter called the 'Buyers'). About 4 to 6% of the total manufacture are sold to buyers other than M/s. CIBA Geigy of India Ltd. In the 24 items, 40% of the goods were sold to the 'Buyers' du...
Tag this Judgment!Bagaha Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT46TriDel
1. At the outset, the appellants' prayer to change their name from "M/s. North Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd." to "M/s. Bagaha Chini Mills Ltd." was heard and allowed in terms of the Calcutta High Court's orders dated 3.12.1980 and 18.5.1981.2. The appeal itself was then taken up. It relates to the appellants' claim for central excise duty concession (commonly called incentive rebate for higher production) in respect of the sugar produced by them during October-November, 1974. Notification No. 146/74-CE dated 12.10.1974 fixed the quantum of duty concession for such sugar produced in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of preceding five sugar years. We find from the data enclosed with the appellants' supplementary rebate claim dated 5.5.1975 that they had produced sugar 'in all the preceding five sugar years though they did not produce any sugar during October-November period in 'two out of the five preceding sugar years (1971-72 and 1973-74). The lower authorities hav...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Cotton Corporation of India and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT327TriDel
1. In respect of import of certain quantity of Pakistani Cotton, the Government of India, under an ad hoc exemption order No. 164 dated 31-3-1975, granted exemption from duty from so much as was in excess of 15% ad valorem, subject to a certain condition. The said import was canalised through the Cotton Corporation of India, the cotton to be imported for use of various mills who are the other respondents in this batch of appeals. A quantity of 66,701 bales out of the quantity covered by the abovesaid exemption order had been cleared on payment of 15% import duty in terms of the said order. Subsequently, in response to another letter dated 24-10-1975 of the Ministry of Commerce, the Government; passed another ad hoc exemption order dated 11-11-1975, whereunder full exemption was granted with reference to 1,20,354 bales consisting of 66,701 bales already cleared as well as 53,653 bales which had been imported but for which duty had not been paid, as the said goods had been stored in the...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Bhairo Prasad Bhagwat Saran.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]17ITD409(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri O. P. Jain, Judicial Member - The revenue is in appeal against the order of the AAC, B Range, Bareilly dated 12-3-1984 whereby the penalty of Rs. 12,500 imposed by the ITO under section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), was deleted. The matter relates to the assessment year 1977-78.2. The number of facts giving rise to the present appeal are these : The assessed is a registered firm. On 3-6-1976, the custom authorities had conducted a search in the business premises of the assessed and the residential premises of its managing partner Shri Bhagwat Saran. Besides certain other articles primary gold weighing 133.500 gms. valued at Rs. 6,000, new gold ornaments weighing 262.900 gms. valued at Rs. 10,204, new gold ornaments weighing 298.500 gms. valued at Rs. 11,509 and old ornaments weighing 39.310 gms. valued at Rs. 1,814, total Rs. 29,527 were seized by the custom authorities. The statement of Shri Bhagwat Saran was recorded by such authorities immediately a...
Tag this Judgment!Mahabir Metal Convertors Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC290Tri(Delhi)
1. This application for Condonation of Delay in presenting the Appeal No. 382/85-BI arises in the following circumstances.2. The Order-in-Original No. V-Adj. (27) 15-17/81/1269 was passed by the learned Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-11 on 28-8-1984.Against this order, the appellants M/s. Mahabir Metal Converters filed an appeal which was received in the Registry on 12-2-1985 along with an application for Stay and application for Condonation of Delay. No affidavit was filed in support of the application for Condonation of Delay at the time of the filing of the appeal. In the application for Condonation of Delay, it was stated that the Order-in-original passed on 28-8-84 was served upon the appellants on or about 29-9-84 and since the appeal against the said order ought to have been filed before 29-12-1984, the delay in presenting the appeal be condoned.3. The said application for Condonation of Delay came up for hearing, but on one ground or the other the case was adjourned. It i...
Tag this Judgment!