Delhi Court February 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.
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Miss K.P. Sarojini
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)21ITD518(Delhi)
1. The revenue is in appeal and following sole ground has been raised before us : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the AAC erred in directing that the assets left by the mother and the father of the assessee should be deleted though the assessee is sole heir of the said assets.2. The respondent-assessee is a resident-individual. The assessment year involved is 1978-79 for which the valuation date is 31-3-1978. At the assessment stage, assessment was framed at a positive figure of Rs. 7,21,781 (rounded off to Rs. 7,21,800) vide assessment order dated 1-3-1983 as against the returned figure of wealth of Rs. 4,07,035. The assessment order reveals that following additions were made : (i) Wealth left by the assessee's mother, taken as per Estate Duty order Rs. 2,98,191 ; and (ii) Value of properties left by the father of the assessee as per Estate Duty order Rs. 4,80,687. Exemption available under Section 5(1)(A) of the Act and estate duty and taxes payab...
Nav Bharat Enterprises Ltd. Vs. the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 18, Ne ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi117; [1987]66STC252(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order to assessment which is passed by the respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act seeking to tax certain turnover of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1974-75. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner, in the year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, had been exporting goods from India to USSR through the State Trading Corporation. The value of the goods so exported during that year came to Rs. 9,11,500. 3. The petitioner filed its sales tax returns under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, under the local Act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Two orders were passed 10th April, 1978. The aforesaid sales, which according to the petitioner herein were in the course of export, were sought to be taxed under the local Act. Under the Central Sales Tax Act another order dated 10th April, 1978 was passed. As per the said order there was no tax payable under the Central Sales Tax ...
Peter Robertson Cowan Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1987
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT305
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) The appellant aggrieved by his conviction and sentence has preferred this appeal. He was convicted under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called Ndps Act) and on 24th May 1986 was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to the fine of Rs. one lakh in default of payment of which he was required to undergo R 1. for two more years. This order was passed by Mr. P.L Singla. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. (2) I may first notice the facts which are that the appellant was allegedly caught on 1st January, 1986 at about 9.45 Pm near Main Bazar Pahar Ganj (Baoli Chowk Paharganj), Delhi. He was found carrying a polythene bag in his hand and on search one kilogram of 'Charas' in the form of capsules and in stick form wrapped in a polythene paper was recovered. The bag was duly sealed and according to the prosecution 100 grams of Charas was taken as representative sample. The sample and the remaining seized Cha...
Perfect Cartons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC76Tri(Delhi)
1. - The issues that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as to whether :- (a) the Appellant and M/s. Perfect Agencies are two different entities; (b) if not, the value of clearances effected by both of them during the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 should be clubbed for the determination of Appellants' eligibility to the benefit of Notifications Nos. 80/80 and 83/83; (c) the Appellant had contravened any or all of the provisions in Rules 9(2) and 173(Q); and (d) the levy of penalties of Rs. 500/- under Rule 173-Q and Rs. 250/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules was justified and they are maintainable? 2. Certain penalties which would appear to have been imposed on M/s.Perfect Agencies are not relevant for our purpose in this appeal by M/s. Perfect Cartons. No appeal of M/s. Perfect Agencies is before us. (i) unity of ownership of both the appellant as well as M/s. Perfect Agencies, (ii) the manufacture of duplex board printed cartons aggregating in value of Rs. 10,46,729.63...
Ranbaxy Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC323Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants in respect of their product Chloramphenicol Eye Ointment claimed classification under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff read with exemption notification No. 55/75-CE dated 1.3.1975 as amended by 62/78 dated 1.3.1978. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay by his order dated 14.2.1980 after scrutiny of the labels held that the product fell under T.I. 14E as Patent & Proprietary Medicine. It appears that in the meanwhile before classification list was approved the product was exported to foreign countries. Consequent upon this classification the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II Division 'K' issued show cause cum demand notice against actual manufacturers M/s. Pharma Medico (I) Private Ltd., Bombay. Adverse approval of the classification list under T.I.14E was challenged by the appellants before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay by his order dated 22.4 1983 did not go int...
Bharat Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT746TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Bharat Corporation had imported a consignment of 'Elastic Webbing" and had cleared the same on payment of duty as assessed. They subsequently claimed refund on the ground that duty should have been levied in terms of Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the same was upheld by the Appellate Collector also. The revision petition preferred against the same to the Central Government is, on transfer, the present deemed appeal before us.2. None has appeared today on behalf of the appellants in spite of service of notice. We have accordingly heard Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department and have perused the records.3. The question whether elastic webbing would be entitled to exemption in terms of Notification No. 29/79-Cus., dated 10-2-1979 came up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhaganlal & Sons and it was held in the said appeal (C/Appeal No. 610/81-D and connected appeals) under Or...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Arch International
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT273TriDel
1. In view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass in these appeals it is unnecessary to state the facts of the appeals in detail.These appeals are by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur against order-in-appeal No. 1856 and 1220 CE/80 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi received by the appellant-Collector on 12-1-1981. These appeals have been prepared and signed on 5-1-1983 and received in this Tribunal the same day. In view of the said dates it was enquired of Smt. Saxena representing the appellant-Collector as to how the appeal were maintainable. Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant for the respondents no doubt stated that he does not propose to raise this ground of time bar in preferring the appeals, That was evidently for the reason that, as stated by the Consultant the respondents wanted to prefer cross objections. This was evidently with reference to the portion of the relief denied to them under the order of the Appellate Collector. But...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Central India Board Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC734Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant, the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, says that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, was not correct in his assessment that under notification No. 127/78-CE., dated 29-5-1978 the value of the unveneered particle board used in the manufacture of veneered board should be calculated up to the stage of sanding and levelling. This notification allows exemption from so much of the excise duty as is equivalent of the duty of excise leviable with reference to that part of the value thereof which represents the value of the unveneered particle board.2. The learned counsel for the department, Mr. Doiphode, argued that the assessees tried to increase the value of the unveneered board only because by this increase there was a larger deduction from the excise duty payable by them. By means of adding the value of sanding and levelling, the value of the unveneered board increased.3. The learned counsel said that the factory clears only unsanded, unlevelled unven...
Scientific Instrument Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT599TriDel
1. In this appeal, the dispute is on determination of assessable value of Scientific Instruments imported by the appellants.2. On 5.12.1986, the appellants made a preliminary objection stating that the Collector (Appeals) had passed the impugned order without hearing them. However, they added in the same breath that they did not want a remand of the matter, to the Collector (Appeals) but wanted this Tribunal to decide it on merits. Today, when the hearing was resumed, they again stated that they were not pressing the point of not being heard by the Collector (Appeals). 2A. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants were sole distributors of about 20 foreign suppliers of Scientific Instruments, for the whole of India. For this purpose they had entered into agreements with these foreign suppliers. According to these agreements, they were to get discount/commission ranging from 12.5% to 20% on the Instruments imported by them. In terms of agreement, out of the discount/commission, the ...
G.S. Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT148TriDel
1. M/s. G.S. Industries, Sodal Road, Jalandhar are engaged in the manufacture of unclassified M.V. parts falling under T.I. 68. It appears that they also manufacture Transmission Fittings (11 K.V.) (Discs) which are classifiable under TI68. It was noticed that while arriving at the aggregate value of the free clearances of Rs. 15 lacs during 1979-80 as per Notification 89/79, dated 1.3.79, they had not accounted for the value of the transmission fittings cleared from their factory. The Assistant Collector passed orders on 30.12.83 holding that in some case, 3rd parties had been manufacturing Cross Arms Strips exclusively on behalf of the appellants for use in the disc fittings.Similarly the hole was drilled for the bolt exclusively for the purpose of use in disc fitting. Under those circumstances, the Asstt. Collector held that the 11K. V. Disc Fittings were classifiable under TI 68 of the First Schedule and that effective rate of duty would be 4% on clearances exceeding Rs. 15 lacs u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »