Delhi Court June 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.021 seconds)Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1532Tri(Delhi)
1. The two questions arising for decision in this Appeal to the Tribunal are whether the rejection of the appellants' prayer for re-registration of contract to enable the appellants to avail of concessional rate of duty under, Project Import Regulations Tariff Heading 84.66(ii) of C.T.A. was correct or otherwise and whether the denial of concessions under the Item in respect of spare-parts imported, by the lower authorities is correct.2. Facts material for decision of this Appeal are that the appellants were granted import licence bearing No. 1/CG/2039360/T/ER/78/H/80, dated 1st April, 1981 for the import of capital goods for setting up a Copper Foil Generating Plant and After Treatment Plant with accessories/spares under Project Import and the licence granted had the requisite recommendation for concessional rate of duty provided for project import under Heading 84.66 of the CTA 1975. It appears that the appellants entered into a contract with foreign supplier for import of the goods...
Tag this Judgment!Poulose and Matthen Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT424TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras dated 17-2-1982 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam dated 18-7-1981 rejecting the appellants' claim for refund as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was originally filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government and has been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellant is a company manufacturing liquid carbon dioxide at its fac tory at Udyogamandal and Quilon in Kerala State. The appellants claimed a refund of Rs. 49,565.72, representing 25% excise duty relief under notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976 in respect of the clearances between 12-12-1977 to 31-3-1978. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the original authority, namely, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Er...
Tag this Judgment!Des Raj Nagpal Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD800(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 1976-77 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1976.2. Vide agreement to sell dated 12-8-1975 the assessee agreed to sell house property bearing No. 26/136, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, to Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Mahendra Kumar Anand, sons of Shri D.R. Anand, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 55,000. According to the agreement, the purchasers had paid Rs. 5,000 to the assessee by way of earnest money. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000 was to be received by the assessee from the said purchasers at the time of registration of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi. The possession of the property in question was to be given to the purchasers by the seller on the date of registration of the sale deed. The agreement to sell provided that the sale deed will be executed by the assessee in favour of the purchasers after obtaining the Income-tax clearance certificate and sale permission from t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Arun Kumar
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD750(Delhi)
1. By this reference application, presented on 21-11-1983 and made under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act), the Commissioner requires the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer to the Honble Delhi High Court for its esteemed opinion, the following question claimed to be a question of law and said to arise out of order dated 1-9-1983 made by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B' in WT Appeal No. 1607 (Delhi) of 1982 in relation to the assessment year 1976-77, on appeal by the revenue : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the WTO to revalue the property at 15-B, Friends Colony, in accordance with Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Rules by holding that though it came into existence with effect from 1-4-1979, yet it had retrospective operation 2. Qua, the reasoning contained in order dated 23-8-1983, made in the case of CWT v. D.G. Bhagat [1983] 17 TTJ 460 (Delhi). We decline to d...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Oswal Agro Mill Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1541Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 18-4-84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.By the said order, the learned Collector (Appeals) has allowed to the respondents the benefit of the deduction of freight element for movement of the goods from the factory gate to the closest delivery point.2. The contention of the learned JDR is that Notification No.120/75-CE, dated 30-4-75 is a parallel mode of determination of the assessable value of excisable goods vis-a-vis their valuation under Section 4(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter to be referred to as Act). He invited our attention to an order of this Tribunal reported as 1985 (19) ELT 326 (Kunal Engineering Co. Ltd. v.Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras). In this order it was held that a manufacturer, whose goods were classifiable under Item 68 of C.E.T. can determine his duty liability either with reference to the invoice price vide Notification...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sunrise Woollen and Silk Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1910Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal filed under the orders of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the short point is whether the respondents, who during the period 1-3-78 to 31-7-78 were manufacturers of embroidered cotton fabrics, paying duty at the compounded levy rates fixed by Notification No. 85/71, dated 29-5-71, were also liable, in addition, to pay special excise duty in terms of Section 37(1) of the Finance Act, 1978. The amount involved during the above-mentioned period was Rs. 444.39, as held by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Amritsar. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi accepted the contention of the appellants that the payment by them of the amount fixed under Rule 96-ZI amounted to a discharge of their total duty liability and that no further duty was payable by them. It is against this order that the present appeal had been filed.2. Appearing before us for the appellant Collector, Shri Verma reiterated the submissions contained in the memo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. the Sirsilk Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1536Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. The Sirsilk Limited are manufacturers of Acetate Rayon Yarn, Acetate Staple Fibre and Acetate Tow. In respect of certain inputs with reference to such manufacture they had claimed benefit of notification No. 201/1979 relating to such of the inputs as had been purchased by them from the open market. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise under his order dated 14.8.1981 held that they were not entitled to such benefit since these inputs had been utilised only in the manufacture of other excisable goods which themselves were exempted from duty by reason of Notification No. 118/1975, such intermediate products being consumed captively in the course of further manufacture resulting in the final manufacture of the products mentioned earlier.He had also further held that as such inputs purchased from the market were mixed up with similar inputs manufactured in the factory itself for captive consumption and they were all used together in further manufacture it was not possible to c...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT691TriDel
1. The appellants have, by their letter dated 15-2-1985, informed that they do not propose to present their case in person. They have requested that the matter may be decided on merits on the basis of their written submissions.2. We have accordingly taken up the matter, heard the Department's Representative and examined the records. The facts of the case, in brief, are that during the period from January, 1976 to January, 1978, the appellants manufactured non-cellulosic spun yarn and removed it for weaving into fabrics within their mills. They paid duty on 3,320 kgs.of such yarn on the basis of unsized weight of the yarn. A demand for differential duty of Rs.14,328/- was issued to them' under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that duty should have been paid on 3,917 kgs. of the yarn on the basis of its sized weight. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector, by his order dated 8-2-1980, upheld the charge of duty on the basis of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC(1978)Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally a Revision Application to Government of India, is whether High Carbon Steel Brass plated Shredded wire (Code name Shreddic) imported by the appellants for the purpose of Customs falls under Heading 73.15(i) read with Heading 73.14 of C.T.A. as claimed by the appellants or Heading 73.33/40 ibid as assessed by the Revenue.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim for re-assessment and refund by order dated 19-1-1977 holding that the goods are small cut pieces of wire used for the enforcement and are manufactured to a given length of 3/8" to 1/2'; hence they were manufactured articles out of wire and not wire itself. The assessment, therefore, under Heading 73.33/40 at the time of import was held by him to be correct. Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, by his order dated 8-11-1977 held that the wires after cold drawing had undergone a process of shredding and as such these were not usual wires falling under Item ...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Abdul Majid
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)13ITD762(Delhi)
1. In this revenue appeal, the solitary ground is against the cancellation of penalty of Rs. 2,550 levied by the ITO under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in respect of the assessment year 1977-78.2. The respondent filed its return of income on 7-10-1977, though in normal course, it should have been filed on or before 30-6-1977. In the penalty proceeding initiated for late riling, it was explained that the asses-see was a registered firm and that its finally assessed income amounted to Rs. 1,63,840, on which in the status of registered firm, the tax worked out to Rs. 27,583, against which tax deducted at source under Section 194C of the Act was to the tune of Rs. 54,598 and, therefore, there could be no question of levying any penalty which could be in relation to tax levied on assessment. The assessee further pleaded that no extension application was filed, being under the bonafide belief that the tax deducted at source was much more than the tax due. The IT...
Tag this Judgment!