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.
innes Waston and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC232
1. The issue in the present matter is the correct classification of laminated jute bags manufactured by the appellants out of hessian, on which appropriate amount of duty of excise has been paid under Itam 22-A of the Central Excise Tariff.2. Appellants submit that in their products, the weight of jute predominates, that is, it is more than of other materials and, therefore, they should be classifiable under item 22-A of the central excise tariff. It is urged that prior to the introduction of tariff item 68, such products were classified by the department under item 22-A of the central excise tariff and were exempted by virtue of notification No. 53/65 dated 20-3-1965 as amended by notification No.150/65 dated 18-9-1965. It was a matter of surprise for the appellants to receive a show cause notice dated 7th June, 1979 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise asking them to show cause as to why the laminated jute bags should not be classified under item 68 of the central excise t...
Patvolk Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT245TriDel
1. Patvolk, Madras had filed a revision application to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. C3/1258/1981 dated 5.5.81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131 B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants had imported one Chariot Elevateur Henley Hermes 68 vide Bill of Entry No. D/578 dated 30th December, 1979. The same was charged to our duty under heading 87.07 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at the rate of 60% plus 15% ad valorem as per Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant had filed a refund application on the basis of the Deputy Prime Minister's Budget Speech made in the year 1979 and had made a claim that basic 25% duty was leviable. The said refund claim was rejected by the learned Assistant Collector on the ground that since the...
Electrosteel Castings Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT305TriDel
1. The learned counsel for M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. said that the order-in-appeal No. 1684/Cal/81, dated 21-12-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, was erroneous and did not take all the facts into account. The goods they cleared viz. balls and cylpebs, were nothing but cast products. They were not, in any way, machine parts and there had been no finishing by the use of machines.All the goods had received were fettling and dressing; both these were carried out manually. The balls and cylpebs as they came out of their casting moulds are separated from each other by a hand-wielded hammer or some such hand-held tool for knocking away extra unwanted metal.This process is known as fettling in metal industry. Since these fettled balls invariably contain sands, dust and other foreign matter, they are cleaned by brushing and washing; this process, also known as dressing, is carried out by hand. It will be appreciated that both processes of fettling and dr...
Prabhu Dayal Didwania Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)20ITD686(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee is an individual and his accounting year ends on 31-3-1981. He had filed his original return showing an income of Rs. 11,500 and an assessment was made at the same figure on 12-11-1981. On 17-11-1981 the Income-tax Department had sealed a warehouse at Tank Bunder, Darukhana, Bombay where 22 m. tonnes of CRCA sheets were kept. These sheets were said to belong to four persons and one-fourth share belonged to the assessee.The assessee wrote to the Commissioner stating that the cost of the above stock at Rs. 1,06,700 had been acquired in that very year and the assessee offered to pay tax for this amount for the accounting period ending on 31-3-1982 relevant for the assessment year 1982-83. An affidavit to this effect was also filed and the assessee paid advance tax in respect of this investment.2. In the course of his inquiry the ITO had summoned the ass...
Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ17; 1988(15)ECC401; 1987(32)ELT663(Del)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) The question involved in the Miscellaneous application (CM No. 3754/86) is whether the value of service contract (alleged by the petitioners to be optional but denied by the respondents) for after sale service can be included in the assessable value for the purpose of Section 4(4)(d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.(2) At one stage, in 1981, the Excise Authorities were taking a view that the same was not includable in the assessable value. Thereafter, in 1983, a sort of instruction was issued inter-departmentally to the Collector (Appeals) to include the said value in the assessable value for the purpose of charge of excise duty.(3) It is asserted that the petitioners have been submitting their price lists from time to time and the same were being approved right till end of July, 1986, in these price lists the petitioners did not include the value of the aforesaid four year service contract. At the same time it appears, that the Excise department, inspire of ...
Sarla Wati Dewan Vs. Mangal SaIn Bahri and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-19-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT331
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the landlord is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-11-79 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by the tenant against order passed under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was set allied and consequently, it was further held that since respondent No. 1 was not proved to be the tenant, the eviction petition itself was also dismissed. (2) The appellant/landlord had filed a petition for eviction under Clauses (b) & (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act. An application under Section 15 of the Act was also filed on the ground that no rent have been paid to the landlord from 1st August, 1973. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 namely Shri Mangal Sain was the tenant of the premises in dispute and subsequently he inducted his brother who was respondent No. 2 and after respondent No. 1 had retired he plaited in possession in favor of his brother respondent No. 2. The benefits requirements of the landlord were al...
Ram Kishore Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT312
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Ram Kishore. appellant, is not satisfied with the finding of fact given by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Special Judge, Delhi, vide his order dated 18th October, 1979, whereby he was held guilty of an offence u/s 161 as well as u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 on both the counts. In default of payment of either fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two months. (2) In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant, it is relevant to keep in mind the salient features of the prosecution case, Babu is employed as a sweeper for sweeping the roads in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The accused appellant was an Assistant Sanitary Inspector of the same area where Babu used to work. On a sunny day, the accused met Babu and told him that be would be transferred to some lorry. Babu, Public Witness requested for his continued posting at the same place. On ...
Poona Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT443TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Poona Beverages Pvt. Ltd. are manufacturer of aerated waters falling under item 1-D of the Central Excise Tariff.Their claim for benefit of exemption from duty in respect of the initial clearances of upto Rs. 5,00,000.00 under notification No. 71/78 CE was not approved by the Assistant Collector and hence they were paying duty under protest. Subsequently they relied upon a decision of the Government of India in the case of M/s. Punjab Beverages Ltd. and again claimed benefit under the above notification and also claimed refund of Rs. 2,09,421.91 paise in respect of duty paid on the initial clearances of Rs. 5,00,000.00. The Assistant Collector while conceding the claim for benefit under Notification 71/78 CE upheld the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 1,48,266.14 paise and rejected the balance.This was upheld by the Appellate Collector also. The reason for rejection for the balance of claim was that the appellants had realised from the customers the gross price...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC68
1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur has argued his case well, in his order C.No.V. 68(3) Demand/158/82/2797-99 dated 17-7-1984 (there is another date 13-7-84 on the order).2. He says that cryslite, aluminium flouride, borax, lime cannot be termed raw materials for the purpose of manufacture of aluminium to gain the benefit under notification No. 201/79-CE amended by notification No. 105/82-CE which provides for duty exemption on goods in the manufacture of which any goods falling under item 68 have been used as raw materials or component parts. The exemption is from so much of the duty of excise as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the raw materials or component parts. The reasons he gives for holding that the cryolite, aluminium flouride and others are not raw materials are reproduced below :- The term raw material is not defined in the Central Excises & Salt Act, Central Excise Rules or Notification No. 201/79 (as amended). Therefore, we shal...
Anup Engineering Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC56
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture engineering goods falling under Tariff Item 68. They also undertake the activity of job 'work for fabricating the goods from raw materials supplied by the customers. On 30-4-1975, the Government issued a Notification No. 119/75 exempting goods' falling under T.I. 68 and manufactured on job work basis from payment of duty in excess of the duty calculated on the job charges. In view of the Notification and the Explanation the appellants started paying duty on job charges in respect of the goods manufactured from the materials supplied by the clients. A show cause notice was issued on May 1976 directing the appellants to show cause as to why Central Excise duty should not be recovered on the value of the raw materials supplied in addition to the duty paid on the job charges. The matter was decided by the Assistant Collector ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »