Delhi Court January 1987 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.
Modern Construction Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)20ITD88(Delhi)
1. The appellant-assessee by these appeals challenges three separate orders of the learned AAC, New Delhi for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80, on the following identical ground: The learned Income-tax Officer has erred in disallowing claim under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Since the facts, circumstances, issues and parties are common, for the sake of convenience, we propose to dispose of all the appeals by a single order.2. When the appeals were called for hearing no body appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the service of the notice as is evident from the acknowledgement due receipt placed in the record. There is no adjournment petition either. In the circumstances, we proceed to finalise the matters ex parte, after hearing the learned departmental representative and perusing the record.3. We first take up the assessee's IT Appeal No. 1179 (Delhi) of 1983, for the assessment year 1977-78. The status of the assessee is shown as a registered firm. The accounti...
Dunbar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT500TriDel
1. Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate appears on behalf of the appellants alongwith Shri A.R. Maihava Rao, Advocate and submits that there are two notifications No. 127/69-C.Ex., dated 29-4-1969 and No.72/69-C.Ex., dated 1-3-1969 which are applicable to the impugned products. It is of a greater advantage to the appellants to avail of the first notification and they have sought assessment on that basis, but the benefit of that notification is being denied as per the decision of the lower authorities, according to which, it has been held that assessment should be made as per the second notification, which is considered more specifically to apply to the impugned products. Shri Lakshmikumaran refers to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Calico Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - [1985 (22) E.L.T. 574 (Tribunal)] in which it was held that if there are two notifications which are applicable, then one exemption notification cannot take away the benefit given by another ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Synthochem (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC45
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta holding that Chlorinated Wax is not excisable to duty under Item 11-A of the Central Excise Tariff.2. Smt. J.K. Chander, 3DR appears on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, Patna and submits that she relies gn two recent d%cisions of this Tribunal. Firstly, the decision in the case of Heeral Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ors. - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 269, in which it was held that waxes are classifiable under Item 11-A of the Central Excise Tariff. Secondly, the learned Departmental Representative relies on the decision in the case of Guadian Plasticote Ltd., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Ors. - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 542 in which it was held that when a new and distinct product emerges, notwithstanding that it does not move out of the Tariff Item under which it might have before such emergence paid du...
Guru Nanak Ice Factory Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT102aTriDel
1. When this appeal was called, no one appeared for the appellants. A telegram was read saying the partners of Guru Nanak Ice Factory were out of station and requesting another date for hearing. The bench decided this was not a sufficient cause for adjournment and so it rejected the request. The learned SDR was asked to present the department's case.2. He argued that not only was the claim time barred under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but that M/s. Guru Nanak Ice Factory were not the manufacturers of the goods and did not pay the duty, hence they have no right on the department in the shape of a refund claim.3. And he is right. The claim was filed on 13.9.1978 two and a half years after the payment of duty on 30.3.1976. For this reason the appeal is rejected.4. The refund claim suffers from an even more serious disqualification; the refrigeration parts were manufactured by M/s. Rup Refrigeration, Junagadh, who paid the duty at the time of clearance; they alone can claim...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Raman Kapur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC377
S.B. Wad, J.1. F.A.O. 195/80 is filed by the Insurance Company, mainly challenging the grant of cost and interest by the Tribunal. The accident took place on 20-3-72. By an amendment Section 110-CC was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act, whereby the Court can award simple interest from the date of the application. There is no substance in the submission of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal was right in awarding the interest.2. Costs follow the claim. thereforee, there is no illegality in awarding costs also.3. There are some other submissions made on merits which the Insurance Company is not entitled to make under law. F.A.O. 195/80 stands dismissed.4. C.M. 4083/82 is a cross-appeal for the enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 47,000/- Along with interest @ 6 per cent on the said amount. The counsel submits that the amount of Rs. 25,000/- for the disability suffered by the claimant h inadequate considering the fact that the right arm of the claimant is paralyse...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and o ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: I(1987)ACC249
S.B. Wad, J.1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 11-1-1980. The tribunal had made an award in the sum of Rs. 24,239/- in favor of the Union of India. The Union of India had claimed compensation from respondents 1 and 2, who were the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively and against the Insurance Company for the damage caused to the government vehicle, bearing No. GJB 4941, in an accident which took place on 8-2-1977. The appellant Insurance Company was served, but in spite of repeated opportunities did not appear. Even though costs were imposed on the Insurance Company they did not bother to present themselves. The defense was, thereforee, struck of by the Tribunal. The owner of the offending vehicle and the driver also absented at a later stage and the evidence was, thereforee, recorded ex-parte on behalf of the Union of India. The Tribunal found that the offending vehicle was being run in a grossly rash an...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Gas and Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT663TriDel
1. Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 allows exclusion of cost of packing from the assessable value of goods if the packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the asses-see. The respondents manufactured compressed oxygen gas and cleared it packed in cylinders. The question for consideration in this appeal of the department is whether the deduction of Re.l/- per cubic metre of gas, representing the phased cost of the cylinder over its total life span, claimed by the respondents for exclusion from the sale price of the gas should be allowed. There is no dispute that the gas cylinders were durable and returnable.2. A gas cylinder costs the respondents about Rs. 1,600/- as its initial purchase price. The case of the respondents is that they never recovered this amount in lumpsum from their customers either by way of sale price or by way of security deposit. They took only a small fraction of it from the customers by way of security deposit. ...
G. Das and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT303TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer to the Tribunal has been treated as an appeal.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture various products of copper and/or copper alloys like rounds, hexagons, sections, squares and flats etc. Central Excise duty was imposed on copper and copper alloys and products thereof under Item 26AA of the First Schedule w.e.f. 1-3-61. Item 68 was introduced on 1.3.75. Prior to the insertion of the residuary item the Central Excise authorities assessed and proceeded on the basis that the goods manufactured would fall within Item 26A. Only after the residuary Item 68 was introduced the authorities claimed duty on certain products of copper and copper alloys manufactured by the appellants under Item 68.The present dispute relates to the classification list dated 1-4-76. On 3-6-76 the Assistant Collector approved the classification list of all goods except flat (over 10 mm). He ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rajaram Corn Products (Punjab)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT705TriDel
1. A common issue is involved in these two appeals and they were argued before us together. This common order will dispose of both of them.2. Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 allows exclusion of cost of packing from the assessable value of goods if the packing is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. The respondents manufactured liquid glucose and cleared it in drums. In about 70% cases, the drums were returned to them by their customers and in such cases the department has allowed them exclusion of the cost of drums from the assessable 'value of liquid glucose.Through the present appeals, the department seeks to disallow such exclusion in the remaining cases on the ground that "returnable" means "ordinarily/ generally returned" and since the drums were not actually returned to the respondents, they could not be considered as returnable.3. As to what is the meaning of the word "returnable", has been the subject matter of a larg...
Namdang Tea Co. (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC262Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s, Namdang Tea Co. (I) Ltd., are owners of two tea estates by name Namdang Tea Estate and Bogapani Tea Estate. They had filed the declaration required under notification No. 198/76-CE dated 16.6.1976 in respect of these tea estates on 28.5.1977 and the base clearances had been fixed by the Assistant Collector and communicated to the appellants on 29.6.1977. According to the appellants they crossed this base clearance figure in the year 1977-78 on 16.11.1977.On 28.9.1978 they submitted a consolidated claim in respect of both estates for refund of duty paid in excess with reference to the exemption granted under notification No. 198/76. On the directions of the Department they submitted individual claims in respect of the two estates on 30.4.1979. The Assistant Collector under order dated 4.8.1980 rejected the refund claim as barred by time under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules. This was upheld by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 24.1.1981. The appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »