Delhi Court March 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 96 results (0.019 seconds)Addl Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. General Industries Corpor ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)50CTR(Del)87; [1985]155ITR430(Delhi)
Kapur, J.1. The following questions have been referred to us by a common statement of case relating to assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the ITO to dispose of the contention of the assessed regarding admissibility of depreciation and development rebate in conformity with the instruction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes as contained in their circulars relied on by the assessed 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to include the value of machinery and plant employed in plaster of paris unit in the computation of capital employed for purposes of section 84 of the income-tax Act, 1961, in conformity with the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, contained in their circulars relied on by the assessed ?' 2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The assessed had purch...
Tag this Judgment!Ponish Siva Kanthaswamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985CriLJ1511
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner who has been indulging in international travel under different names with the help of different passports, was apprehended at Bombay Airport on 17th March, 1984, while he was seeing a movie in the transit lounge. He was booked as a passenger from Singapore to Dubai via Madras and Bombay by Air India Flight No. AI 415, The petitioner was accompanied on this flight by a friend responding to the name of Patrick Evgene who was also coming from Singapore and was booked to go to Paris via Madras and Bombay. One Babu Kunjappa was employed as a sweeper in the International Airport at Bombay. The customs enforcement authorities on a suspicion apprehended Babu Kunjappa and searched him. On search four kilograms of gold was found on his person. His statement was recorded which led to apprehending of the petitioner and Patrick Evgene. On a search two kilograms of gold was found from zipper bag of the petitioner and one biscuit of gold weighing 100 grams was re...
Tag this Judgment!Delux Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(23)ELT231TriDel
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-28/80E dated 27-12-80 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, rejecting as time-barred the appeal made to him. The basic facts are that the appellants had exported a quantity of "Indian rice bran extraction" which was provisionally allowed to be exported without payment of duty.Thereafter, a demand for export duty amounting to Rs. 62,100 under Item 21 of the Export Tariff Schedule was made, and subsequently confirmed in an order dated 4-12-78 of the Assistant Collector of Customs. An appeal against this order was filed to the Appellate Collector on 18-9-80, which, as mentioned above, was rejected by him as time-barred.2. Appearing before us for the appellants, Shri M. Venkataraman, their learned advocate, submitted that the appellants had a clear case on merits, and that they were entitled to the refund of the abovementioned amount, which they had subsequently paid. He submitted that a number of other exporters against whom sim...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC2059Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has reference to a notice dated 1.7.77 under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, issued by the Central Government, which was the revisional authority under that section at that time. The matter arose out of an importation of "glass fabric" by Messrs.Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "the importers") in April, 1974. The goods were assessed to basic customs duty, auxiliary duty and also to additional duty of customs at the rate of Rs. 8/-per Kg, The present appeal relates to this levy of additional duty amounting to Rs. 1024/-.2. The importers filed a claim for refund on three grounds and relating to the three elements of duty referred to above. Their claim on all three grounds was rejected.3. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs also rejected their claim in regard to the basic customs duty and the auxiliary duty. As regards the additional duty (commonly referred to as "countervailing duty") the Appellate Collector observed that the goo...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Dyeing and Finishing Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT435TriDel
1. The factory premises of the appellants M/s. Ashoka Dyeing and Finishing Mills was raided by Central Excise Officers on 20-11-1980 and a search was conducted. Following the said search a show cause notice was issued pointing out various contraventions of the Central Excise provisions on the part of the appellants. After due adjudication the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh under his order dated 24-12-1981 ordered confiscation of 39 pieces of dyed man-made fabrics giving an option for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- and also demanded duty under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on - (1) 10 pieces of man-made fabrics measuring 490 Sq. mtrs. relating to lot No. 562 valued at Rs. 4,655.00; (2) 33 pieces of man-made fabrics measuring 1616 Sq. mtrs. relating to lot No. 465 (15 pieces) and No. 599 (18 pieces) valued at Rs. 30,623.20.and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. On appeal the Central Board of Excise and Customs under order dated 24-6-1982 reduced the...
Tag this Judgment!Bishamber Nath Ram Sarup Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]163ITR87(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur J. 1. This application under section 256(2) relates to the assessment year 1962-63. As many as 14 questions were said to arise out of the Tribunal's order in appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application under section 256(1) stating that some of the questions did not arise and some of them were factual questions and at least 2 or 3 questions are covered by judgments of the Supreme Court and were academic. 2. We have examined the case in great detail. The first 7 questions sought to be raised relate to the initiation of proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The facts of the case are that there was a raid on the applicant's business place in September, 1967, but nothing was discovered. However, some account books referred to as uchanti account books were handed over by some munims of the assessed to the Central Bureau of Investigation. These books were handed over before the raid. They came into the possession of the investigation wing of the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment!Universal Plast Limited Vs. Santosh Kumar Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi383; 1986(1)ARBLR282(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The plaintiff is a public limited company. Earlier its name was Chowdhry Plast Ltd. The plaintiff owned 4,200 spindles with motors and accessories which were installed at 236, Industrial Area, Ludhiana.'By a resolution of the) plaintiff it was decided to sell these spindles at a price of Rs. 1,02,440.18. The defendant agreed to buy the same at this price. This was by letter dated 5th July, 1973 of the plaintiff to the defendant, which was agreed to by the defendant. This letter is Ex. P-4. Under this the defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,0001- towards part payment and the balance amount of Rs, 92,440.18 he agreed to pay to the plaintiff by 30th September, 1973. This letter also recorded the fact that the possession of the spindles had already been delivered to the defendant. Then this letter also contained the following conditions : 'WE shall reader you all assistance as may be required by you for obtaining permission of all Government Authorities by way of sig...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT362TriDel
1. M/s Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called the Respondents) imported a consignment of 2900 Kgs of Titanium pioxidc KRONOS-AVF and the same was assessed to Customs duty under heading 32.04/12 of the CTA 75 with levy of additional duty under heading 14 of the C.E.T. The duty was paid on 25-4-1981. After clearance of the goods, the respondents filed claim for refund of additional duty paid on the ground that the goods are exempt from payment of additional duty in terms of the Central Excise Notification No. 114/73. The refund application was rejected on the ground that Exemption Notification No.114/73 was not applicable in that case. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, by his Order in Appeal No. S-49/624/84Clause dated 26-7-1984 accepted the appeal and allowed the benefit of Notification No. 114/73-CE to the respondents.2. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the Collector of Customs, Bombay filed an appeal befor...
Tag this Judgment!Servo Electronics Vs. Collr. of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1042Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Servo Electronics, New Delhi,--a partnership firm, having registered office at 83-84, DSIDC Sheds, Okhla Phase-II-have come up in appeal to the Tribunal, feeling aggrieved by an order passed by Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, on 3.10.1983. The proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order, were sequel to a visit to the factory- premises of the said firm by Central lixcise '(Anti Evasion)' officers of Delhi Collectorate Headquarters on 12.2.1982. The firm was found to have been engaged in the manufacture of automatic voltage stabilisers, high voltage testers, Servo Control Voltage Stabilisers, main filters, single phasing presenters, printed circuit board assemblies, transformers, etc. (hereinafter referred to as 'the goods'), falling under T.I. 68 of First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The officers allege to have observed that the factory was employing more than 10 workers and, as such, was registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and that, in...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Foundry Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1767Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against Order-in-Original dated 26-7-1983 passed by Shri Surjit Singh, Collector of Central Excise, Patna. By the said order, the Collector inter alia held that the appellant's product blast furnace cooling members made out of duty paid copper casting after further machining and known as monkeys, tuyers, nozzles and the like were excisable under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and did not continue to fall under Item 26A as claimed by the appellant.2. The proceedings against the appellant are the outcome of a visit by Central Excise Officers to the appellant's factory and institution of a case against the appellant. (It is not possible to make out the exact date of the Superintendent's visit from the material on record). This led to registration of a case against the appellant by the Central Excise Department and notice dated 27-4-1982 alleging contravention of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules 174...
Tag this Judgment!