Delhi Court September 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mcleod Russel (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC612Tri(Delhi)
1. All these appeals were heard together since they involve a common issue. The appellants M/s. McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. are owners, amongst various Tea Estates, of three Tea Estates by name of Chuapara Tea Estate, Jainti Tea Estate and Central Dooars Tea Estate. They had submitted their declaration on 12-6-1978 in respect,of exemption under notification No. 198/76-CE., dated 16-6-1976. Orders for fixation of their basic clearances were passed by the Assistant Collector on 2-1-1979. Subsequently they filed four refund claims as follows :- (1) Dated 17-7-1979 for the year 1977-78 in respect of Chuapara Tea Estate; (2) Dated 16-7-1979 for the year 1977-78 in respect of Jainti Tea Estate; (3) Dated 3-9-1979 for the year 1978-79 in respect of Chuapara Tea Estate; and (4) Dated 26-11-1979 for the year 1978-79 in respect of Central Dooars Tea Estate.The concerned Assistant Collector dismissing all these refund claims under different orders on the ground that they had been filed beyond the...
Ramesh C. Vaswani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT882TriDel
1. The appellant Ramesh C. Vaswani arrived by Air India flight of 12-7-1980 at Bombay and at that time made a declaration that he had unaccompanied baggage consisting of National NV 8610 Video recorder and a Philips Colour TV. Landing certificate was issued with reference thereto. On midnight of 15-7-1980/16-7-1980 duty on such goods was raised from 150% to 320%. When the appellant cleared the goods on 16-7-1980 duty was demanded at 320% which he paid under protest. This order demanding duty at 320% was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Customs under order dated 16-12-1980. The appellant preferred a Revision petition to the Government which, on transfer, is now before us as an appeal.2. We have heard Shri N.D. Batra, Advocate for the appellant and Smt.Dolly Saxena for the Department.3. There is no dispute that the passenger as well as the goods arrived at Bombay on 12-7-1980 but by different flights. The two articles in question arrived as unaccompanied baggage. There is also no di...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prag Vanaspati Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC101Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-appeal No. C. No. 339-CE/Appl./ KNP/80 dated 24.9.83 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 27.12.77 the Respondents herein filed an application claiming refund of Central Excise duty paid by them during the period from 24.8.77 to 27.11.77.The application was submitted to the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, who forwarded it to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 5.7.80. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the application was received by him after expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty as prescribed in that rule. An appeal was filed before the Collector (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector. It was urged by the appellants (respondents herein) that the application was made to the Range Superintendent as per practice. The appeal was allowed ...
Prithvi Plastic Packaging and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC168
1. These are two appeals transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. One appeal has been filed by the assessee M/s Prithvi Plastic Packaging and the other appeal has been filed by the department. The impugned order is that of Central Board of Excise & Customs passed by it on appeal by the assessee against Collector of Central Excise, Baroda's order-in-original. Brief facts, in so far material, are as follows : 3. The assessee is manufacturing H.D.P.E. Granules either on its own or on the basis of granules supplied by another proprietory concern Prithvi Polymers on job basis. Thereafter the fabric is cut into shape and size and then stitched into HDPE sacks. In the financial year 1979-80 till around August 1979, the assessee had been manufacturing HDPE fabrics and sacks in the same premises at 42, Industrial Estate, Vatva. Later on, it transferred the stitching operation of the cut to shapes and size fabrics to another premises...
Apollo Tyres Limited Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)ARBLR45(Delhi); 30(1986)DLT519
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) This order would dispose of application filed under -Section 34 of the Arbitration Act by defendant No. 2.(2) The facts giving rise to this application are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,51,9051- against National Insurance Company Limited-defendant No. 1, Ms. Chadha Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd., defendant No. 2, M s. Kohli Auto Corporation-defendant No. 3 and Shri Narinder Singh of M/s. Kohli Auto Corporation-defendant No. 4 on the allegation that the plaintiff bad obtained from defendant No. 1 an open policy of Marine (Inland Transit) Insurance bearing. No. 750/4400363/82/9/0/SDP? dated 4th November, 1982 to cover 'all consignments of tyres, tubes and flaps securely packed during transit by rail/road/conveyance'; that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had agreed vide agreement operative from 15th October 1980 that defendant No. 2 would securely carry for the plaintiff plaintiff's products from Jullundur station to different stations in...
Rajan Dwivedi Vs. M.L. Pareekh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT344; 1986RLR593
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This appeal u/s. 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st January, 1986 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 16th January, 1986 of the Additional Rent Controller fixing the interim rent of the premises in dispute at the contractual rate of rent Rs. 1600.00 per month under Section 10 of the Act. The appellant Ranjan Dwivedi is a tenant in a portion of House No. A-71. Hauz Khas, New Delhi under the respondent M.L. Pareekh. The appellant filed an application of fixation of standard rent. He has alleged that he was in possession of a portion of the house at Rs. 1600.00 per month ; the house was constructed in 1964 ; the material used in the construction of the premises was of inferior quality ; the cost of construction could not be more than Rs. 20,000.00 ; the plot was purchased by the respondent for Rs. 10,000.00 ; the rateable value of the entire house was Rs. 10,260.00 : and the r...
Rishikesh Balkishan Das and ors. Vs. I.D. Manchanda
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: 1987(1)Crimes374; ILR1986Delhi280
G. C. Jain, J. (1) This order shall also dispose Criminal Revisions No. 352 to 355 of 1985 between the same parties as they raise common questions. (2) Rishikesh Balkishandas is a partnership firm. A. N. Dhawan. P. K. Das, K. K. Dhawan and S. S. Dhawan are its partners. They are assessed to income tax. During the assessment year 1978-79 they credited/paid interest to 17 parties. They were required to deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force. The amount deducted was required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. They, however, without reasonable cause or excuse failed to deduct income tax at the rates in force and, or failed to pay the tax as required under law. (3) On these allegations, I. D. Manchanda, Income Tax Officer concerned, having been authorised and directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed six complaints under Section ' 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the said firm and its partners. Five co...
Rishikesh Balkishandas and Others Vs. I. D. Manchanda, Income-tax Offi ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-12-1986
Reported in: [1987]167ITR49(Delhi); [1987]34TAXMAN305(Delhi)
ORDERG. C. JAIN J. - This order shall also dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos. 352 to 355 of 1985, between the same parties as they raise common questions.Rishikesh Balkishandas is a partnership firm A. N. Dhawan, P. K. Das, K. K. Dhawan and S. S. Dhawan are its partners. They are assessed to income-tax. During the assessment year 1978-79, they credited paid interest to 17 parties. They were required deducted was required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. They, however, without reasonable cause or excuse failed to deduct income-tax at the rates and/or failed to pay the tax as required under law.On these allegations, I. D. Manchanda, Income-tax Officer concerned, having been authorised and directed by the Commissioner of Income-tax filed six complaints under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') against the said firm and its partners. Five complaints were in respect of payment and alleged non-deduction/short deduction ...
Malt Co. India Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT627TriDel
1. The question for decision in these appeals is whether an appeal lies against assessment on RT-12 Returns. The Learned Collector (Appeals) held that such orders were not appealable and on this ground rejected the appeals filed by the appellants before him. Aggrieved the appellants have filed these appeals to the Tribunal.2. We have heard Shri D.P. Varshney for the appellants and Shri Sundar Rajan for the respondent and have perused the record. There is overwhelming authority supporting Shri Varshney's contention that such assessments are appealable. Shri Sundar Rajan also does not dispute that such assessments are appealable. In view of this agreed position we do not consider it necessary to dwell at length with authorities on the point. We set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for de novo consideration of the appellants case on merits to the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. As the matters are very old pertaining to year 1975/1978, the Collector (Appeals...
Hivelm Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC539Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application filed by the Government of India which, on transfer to the Tribunal, is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture High Voltage Air Break Switches and Isolators which fall under Tariff Item No. 68. They were clearing the same on payment of duty. The inputs for these products also suffer excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68. On 10-12-1979, the appellants filed a claim for refund on the ground that as per Notification No.178/77 they are entitled to refund of the duty of excise paid in excess for the period from 1-8-1978 to 20-5-1979. As the products manufactured in their factory varied from one another they could not avail the set off earlier as there was difficulty in filing a statement showing the input and output. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Madras passed orders on 15-12-1979 permitting the appellants to take proforma credit of duty paid on the inputs falling under Tariff Item No. 68. On 13-12-1980, the Collector issued a n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »