Delhi Court March 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 1 of about 77 results (0.021 seconds)Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Card Board Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT75TriDel
1. These appeals are filed by the Collector, of Central Excise, Calcutta, against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) of Customs and Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that a show cause-cum-demand notice was issued to the respondents demanding duty of Rs. 1,47,493.21 for the period August 1981 to March 1982 and April 1982 to August 1982 under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the reason that the respondents had realised more duty than actually paid by them to the Department and the assessable value was, therefore, enhanced by the amount of the duty collected in excess of the actual payment made by them. The Collector (Appeals), in his order, has held that the demand for the extended period beyond six months was not sustainable for the reason that there were no allegations that the short levy was for the reason of suppression of facts or mis-statement or mis-declaration with intent to evade payment of duty. He allowed the respondents' appe...
Tag this Judgment!Bakelite Hylam Limited and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC61
1. The four appeals under consideration were earlier subject matter of proceedings before the Government of India, in one case by way of revision application and in other three cases by way of review proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act as applicable at the relevant time. These now stand transferred as if these were appeals before the Tribunal.2. The issues involved in these appeals are common and relate to the classification of goods, namely (i) cotton fabric; (ii) paper; and (iii) glass fabric, each impregnated with phenol formaldehyde and described as 'Prepreg' 'C' or 'P' or 'G' respectively. These are intended for making laminated sheets, tubes etc.3. For the sake of easy reference relevant particulars in regard to these appeals are listed as under :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------S.Appeal No. Description Classification Classification ClassificationNo. of goods as held by as upheld by as claimed origina...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-viii Vs. Shakuntala Rajeshwar
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Del)34; [1986]160ITR840(Delhi)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. These 41 ITCs can be disposed of by a common order. They arise out of assessments of the six applicants to income-tax for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, the relevant previous years being the immediately preceding financial years. It seems that all the applications preferred by the six applicants have not been placed before us and it is likely that some of their applications are still pending in this court but not yet listed or at earlier stages. However, the applications in the case of one of them, viz., Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar, are complete and, since the question involved in the case of all the applicants arises out of similar facts, we shall refer, in disposing of these applications, to the facts in the case of Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar, without discussing separately the position in regard to each of the other assesseds. The reasons given for the decision on the applications preferred by Smt. Shakuntala Rajeshwar will be applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish and Co-and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC42
1. This batch of appeals, having nearly identical facts, raises a common question whether PVC/PU Leather Cloth/PVC Flocking-sheets is "other embellishments for footwear" covered by Serial No. 12 of the Table attached to Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 and, therefore, qualifies for concessional rate of duty as provided for in the said Notification.2. The facts, giving rise to this common question, which are identical in nature with only difference in relevant period of import with which we are not concerned, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant firms: M/s. Ashish & Co., Bombay (Appellant in A. Nos. 265/83D & 466/84-D), M/s. Mehta Ravani & Co., Bombay (Appellant in A. No. 267/83-D), and M/s. Nehal International, Bombay (Appellant in A. Nos. 266 & 2431/83-D), are the importers of the PVC/PU Leather Cloth/PVC Flocking-sheets. All the appellants imported PVC/PU leather cloth/PVC flocking-sheets and paid import duty [3 100% plus 25%+CVD and, thereafter, applie...
Tag this Judgment!Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(25)ELT235TriDel
1. The Collector of -Customs, Madras has filed these appeals against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. C3/1418 A1 to A38/1984 and C3/821/84 dated 25-7-85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras, admitting the appeal of the respondents in this case, M/s. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. (TAFE) Madras. The firm had also come up in appeal separately as appellant against an earlier order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 28-12-82 wherein the Collector (Appeals) had rejected their appeal. As the matters are identical, all these appeals were taken together for disposal. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture Agricultural Tractors. They imported what has been described in their invoice and the relative Bills of Entry as Components/Sub-assemblies for agricultural tractors. These were assessed to duty by the Custom House extending the benefit of Customs Notification 200/79. This Notification exempts components required for manufacture, inter alia, of Tractors from so mu...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Kishan Vs. Ramji Lal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(11)DRJ224
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The appellant is the owner of the House No. 639, Aruna Lane, Shivaji Road, Behind Azad Market, Delhi. He had filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of Rs. 1440.00 as damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 40.00 per month on the ground that the respondent was occupying one room on the second floor with effect from August, 1968 as a trespasser. Before going any further it is necessary to mention a few facts pertaining to an earlier litigation.(2) It appears that in respect of the same room the appellant herein had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 720.00 against one Suraj Narain. In that suit, filed in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Delhi, it was alleged by the father of the appellant that the room had been let to Suraj Narain at a monthly rent of Rs. 20.00 and he had not ''paid the rent from 1-9-1967 to 31-8-1970. Suraj Narain, in his written statement, bad pleaded that he was not a tenant. According to him Ramji Lal, the respondent in ...
Tag this Judgment!Lohia Machines Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)ECC14
1. A question of construction and applicability of Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, arises in this appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, confirming the refusal of the Assistant Collector, Customs, to register certain contracts for the purchase of spares, in terms of the aforesaid Heading. (a) pursuant to the conclusion of contract(s) for the supply of capital goods and machinery for the initial setting up of a plant for the manufacture of fuel efficient two-wheelers, the appellant applied in October, 1983 and obtained registration [of the contract)] reguisite in terms of the proviso in the aforesaid Heading. After import, the goods were cleared on diverse dates from 18-11-83 onwards on payment of the concessional duty assessable in terms of the Heading; (b) at the time of registration, no contracts for the suply of essential spare parts were concluded since the requirements thereof were not worked out. Nevertheless, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Swastik TIn Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC122Tri(Delhi)
1. The present matters arise out of revision petition filed by the appellants under Section 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 against Orders-in-Appeal No. 1057-58-CE/80 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. On the setting up of this Tribunal, this revision petition has been transferred to this Tribunal and is now being treated as appeal before us.2. As both matters arise on a common issue relating to the same party, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. Shri S.P. Bhatnagar, the learned advocate for the appellants states that appellants are undertaking manufacture of tin containers which are being cleared by them on due payment of duty, as well as tin sheets cut to size for purposes of bottoms and bodies of containers of various dimensions which are supplied to customers in accordance with the orders placed on them in that respect. It is stated that these tin sheets were in an unfinished form and supplied to the customers, who would ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Amolak Singh Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1986)58CTR(Del)206; [1987]163ITR825(Delhi)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This order will dispose of Wealth-tax References Nos. 6 to 11 of 1976, relating to the assessment years 1959-60 to 1964-65. The question referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for opinion of this court is mentioned in para 5 of the statement of the case which reads as under : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty amount could not exceed 50% of the tax ?' 2. This question arises for opinion in the following circumstances as narrated in paragraph 3 of the statement of the case which is as under : 'The background of the facts is that in each of these years, the assessed's wealth was assessable to wealth-tax. He should have, thereforee, filed his wealth-tax returns by 30th June, after the close of each accounting year. This he did not do. For the assessment year 1958-59, a return was originally filed on November 4, 1963. A revised return was subsequently submitted on March 30, 1970. For t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Inder SaIn JaIn and Satyapal Jain
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]163ITR831(Delhi)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. The following question has been referred to this court for its opinion : 'Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalties to be levied should be worked out at the rates prescribed under the law as it existed on the relevant valuation dates ?' 2. These wealth-tax references relate to two assesseds, Indersain Jain and Satyapal Jain, both of whom are partners in a firm 'M/s. Kumar Brothers.' 3. These references relate to the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64. 4. For the aforesaid assessment years, Indersain Jain filed his wealth-tax returns on September 18,1969, in response to notices issued under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act and Satyapal Jain filed his returns of his net wealth on September 15, 1969, again in response to the notice issued to him under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act. According to section 14(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, the returns for these years should have been filed on or before September 30, 1962, and September 30, 1963...
Tag this Judgment!