Delhi Court June 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.
Bharat Battery Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC861Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal No. ED/SB/T/823/80-C arises out of Order-in- Appeal No.633-B/80 dated 10.11.1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi and the other two appeals mentioned herein arise out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 113-114/Cal. 1/85 dated 14.4.1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Appellants were represented by Shri D.N. Kohli, learned Consultant in all the three appeals and Shri A.K. Rajhans, learned J.D.R. has represented the respondent in all the three appeals. We have heard both of them.3. Shri Kohli has argued that in Appeal No. 823/80-C, questions of valuation and classification of battery separators used for captive consumption during the period from 1.1.1972 to 31.12.1973 are involved.Show Cause Notice was issued on 14.7.1976 invoking the longer period of time limit. The allegations in the Show Cause Notice were (i) that the appellants manufactured and consumed 31,50,650 pieces of P.V.C.separators in the manufacture of electric s...
Pandia Chemicals Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT64TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Pandia Chemicals claimed drawback in respect of Absorbent Cotton Wool and certain other products exported by them. We are concerned in this case with their claim in respect of Absorbent Cotton Wool only. The same was rejected by the Asstt. Collector under his order dated 27-4-1981 holding that absorbent cotton wool cannot be considered either as drug or drug intermediary or pharmaceutical. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 26-7-1982. This appeal is against the said order.2. The appellants had indicated by letter dated 24-4-1987 that they are not appearing in person or through a representative for the hearing before us. We have perused the records and heard Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department.3. Drawback has been claimed under S.No. 1205 of the drawback scehdule which covers drugs and drug intermediaries. Shri Sachar contends that absorbent cotton wool would not be a drug or a drug intermediary. While...
Dass Photo Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC179Tri(Delhi)
On 5-12-1984, Preventive Officer of Collectorate of Customs, Delhi checked the notified goods, stock of the appellant firm, a registered notified goods dealer in the presence of Ram Chand Dass, partner of the appellant firm and two independent witnesses. As a result of checking with the register, 14 still cameras were found short for which the said Shri Dass could not produce any documentary evidence for their removal or absence from the said premises. In addition to the above, in respect of 28 cameras Shri Dass could not produce any evidence documentary or otherwise for the lawful import/purchase of the said cameras which were all entered in the notified goods register maintained by him as required under Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act. Those cameras valued at Rs. 1,61,200/- were, therefore, seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same had been smuggled into India in violation of the restrictions imposed on the import thereof and were liable to c...
Anil Printing Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT110TriDel
1. Under notice dated 30-9-1976 the appellants M/s. Anil Printing Mills were informed that the test report of the sample of fabrics drawn of lot No. 37 disclosed that the same had been misclassified and mis-declared by them and the same result applied to sample drawn from lot No. 49 and that therefore it was proposed to recover duty short levied. After adjudication the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh under his order dated 27-6-1977 ordered confiscation of the goods allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 28,800/-, imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and demanded the differential duty. On appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Board under its order dated 29-11-1980 reduced the penalty to Rs. 3000/- and redemption fine to Rs. 10,000/- but otherwise confirmed the order of the Collector. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Govt. The same, on transfer, is the present deemed appeal.2. The appellants have indicated by their letter dated 25-...
Kanak Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT8TriDel
1. In this case, the appeal was filed before this Tribunal on 20-1-1984 where as the date of communication of the impugned order was 27-9-1983.There was a delay of 22 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.Shri Kanak Doshi, Proprietor of the appellants firm filed an affidavit along with the application for C.O.D. stating that he was sick from 14-12-1983 to 13-1-1984, as a result of which he could not file the appeal in time. He also submitted a medical certificate in support of his application. He has prayed that the delay of 22 days in filing the appeal may be condoned by the Tribunal. We heard the application for C.O.D. first and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. There after the appeal was taken up for hearing.2. Arguing for the appellants, Shri A, Ghosh, Consultant stated that a copy of the order-in-original was received by the appellants in the second week of July 1983. They filed appeal against that order before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on ITS'1983. The C...
Prag Vanaspati Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT325TriDel
1. In this case the appellants filed an application dated 23-12-1977 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, S.R.P., Aligarh claiming refund of Central Excise duty of Rs. 12,412.40, being refund of duty paid by them during the period from 25-2-77 to 16-9-77.Superintendent of Central Excise forwarded the refund application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 17-9-79. Refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred under Rule 11 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it was not received in his office within a period of six months from the date of payment of duty. Appeal filed before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi was rejected in the impugned order. Hence, this appeal before us.2. Shri Garg, appearing for the appellants, has argued that in view of Kanpur Collectorate Trade Notice No. 206/80 practice of receiving refund claims by the Range Superintendent in Kanpur Collectorate during 1977 is to be presumed. The refund applic...
D.B. Malhotra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD230(Delhi)
1.These four second appeals are directed against the common order dated 21-3-1985 passed by the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, H-Range, New Delhi, by which she upheld the ex parte assessments Under section. 144 in respect of assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80 respectively. The primary contention in the first three grounds for all the years is two-fold. First, that there was no justification for passing ex parte order on 21-3-85 by the AAC because on that day Shri R.K. Mehra, Chartered Accountant did appear and requested for adjournment which was in fact promised and second that confirmation of assessments at Rs. 7,0000, Rs. 75,000 for the first two years respectively and Rs. 80,000 for each of the last two years was not proper. The other grounds are consequential in nature. These appeals are against the orders of the ITO passed Under Section 144 of the IT Act for the above asst. years. 2. In these cases several opportunities were provided to the appel...
Mascot (India) Tools and Forgings Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD274(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax Under Section 263 for the assessment year 1980-81. The facts are that there was a firm known as Mascot (India) Tools & Forgings which had three partners, namely, Shri Harbans Lal Goel, having 75% share, Smt. Kiran Goel, the wife having 5% share and a limited company M/s. Mascot (India) Tools & Forgings Pvt. Ltd. having 20% share. This company was also wholly owned by Shri Goel and his family. The partners decided to dissolve this firm on 4-1-1979. From that date the business of the firm was taken over by the limited company and one of the terms in the Memorandum of Dissolution of the firm was that while closing the accounts on 4th January, 1979 the plant and machinery belonging to the said partners was to be taken in accordance with a valuation report from a qualified person. The other assets and liabilities were agreed to be taken at their book value.2. An approved valuer, Shri S.R....
income-tax Officer Vs. Vidogum and Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD255(Delhi)
1. The department is aggrieved of the order dated 4-3-1985 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi for the assessment year 1984-85.2. The (assessee is an Indian company namely M/s. Vidogum & Chemicals Ltd., 8/3 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was formerly known as M/s.Vishal Chemicals (India) Ltd. It had entered into a foreign collaboration agreement dated 2-12-1977 with Swiss company Unipektin A.G. Unipektin had developed the know-how for the manufacture of high grade edible guar gum, industrial guar gum and their derivatives and had also been operating commercial plants under such know-how. That agreement was for obtaining from Unipektin exclusive right to use the know-how for the manufacture of these gums. The assessee company intended to construct edible guar gum and industrial guar gum plants in India. Unipektin was to prepare the know-how in Switzerland and deliver the same to the assessee in Switzerland, as per the schedule agreed upon in article 6 of ...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P.) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD183(Delhi)
1. These appeals by the revenue are directed against the consolidated order of the GIT (A), Meerut, dated 21-3-1985. This order of the 1d.CIT (A) relates to the penalties levied upon the assessee Under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the asst. year 1979-80. These appeals have been heard today as the representatives of both the sides were present but we are unable to determine the issues before us finally and are constrained to set aside the orders of the 1d. CIT (A) with the directions to him to dispose of the appeals de novo in accordance with law for the following reasons.2. Insofar as penalty Under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, the impugned order of the IAC (A) records the facts ut infra. The return of income for the year under appeal was due on or before 31-7-1979 Under Section 139(1) of the Act. However, no return was filed by that date. The assessing officer records that the assessee asked for extension of time and time was al...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »