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.
Collector of C.E. Vs. Mangla Engg. Works Pvt Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT140TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the CCE Bombay against the order in appeal No.2341-2342/PN-166/TH-191/184 dated 26-11-1984 passed by the Collector Appeal, Bombay holding that pontoons were ocean going vessels.According to the appellant, the Collector Appeals has not analysed how pontoons can be ocean going vessels for the purpose of tax exemption under Notification No. 55/75-CE. Pontoons, says that Appellant Collector, are flat bottomed boats used as supports for temporary bridges. They are also used as ferry boats for crossing rivers.2. In his order, the Collector Appeals noted that sailing vessels, trawlers, fishing vessels etc. have been categorised as ocean going vessels. According to him, Notification No. 82/84-CC which had some descriptions as regards ocean going vessels reinforce his conclusion that the pontoons are ocean going vessels. The character of a vessel can be determined on the basis of its capability and use.3. However, we are not able to follow the reasoning of the order in ...
Fellowship of Physically Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC262
1. None appeared before us for hearing on behalf of the appellants.However, Shri V.B. Akolkar, counsel for the appellants, in his letter dated 3-2-1987, requested for deciding this appeal on the basis of the written submissions enclosed to the said letter. We, therefore, heard Shri J. Gopi Nath, learned SDR for the respondent. He drew our attention to the findings of the lower authorities and also reiterated the arguments advanced by him in a similar case in Appeal No. CD(SB)(T) 769/79-B-2 (Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Indian Red Cross Society, New Delhi), which was decided by this Tribunal vide Order No.812/86-B-2, dated 22-8-1986.2. Appellants imported one photo copier machine Sharp SF-770 with spares and consumable from Singapore which was cleared on payment of Customs duty bi Rs. 57,596.25 vide bill of entry Cash No, HC/81/87, dated 8-10-1982. Thereafter, they applied for ad hoc exemption for Customs duty under the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Governmen...
Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC65
1. In both these appeals learned advocate for the appellants has raised a common preliminary objection based on the violation of an important principle of natural justice. The learned advocate has urged that the hearing by the original authority, namely Assistant Collector of Central Excise in both these cases was given on 25-8-1982 by one person whereas the cases have been decided by another Assistant Collector after a lapse of about 18 months. He has further, stated that this point was specifically in appeal as a ground of appeal before the lower appellate authority whose orders are impugned before the Tribunal now.He has drawn attention to ground No. 4 in appeal before the lower appellate authority leading to the order-in-appeal No. 64-CE/KNP/86, impugned in appeal No. E/2363/86, and he has also invited attention to ground No. 6 in the other appeal before the lower appellate authority leading to the order-in-appeal No. 65-CE/KNP/86, impugned in appeal No.E/2364/86. Learned advocate...
Ghai Lamba Catering Consultants Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD498(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A)-I, New Del hi dated 23-3-85 relating to assessment year 1977-78. We have heard the parties and we proceed to dispose of the grounds in appeal seriatum as under, which is being done after very careful consideration of the rival submissions of the facts on record.2. Ground No. 1 regarding the legality of the fresh assessment was withdrawn with our permission. This, therefore, goes out of our consideration in so far as its determination on merits is concerned. It is dismissed as such.3. In ground No. 2, the grievance of the assessee is that the 1d.CIT(A) erred in law in not giving any clear finding in respect of the system of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. We find that the assessee had taken ground No. 2 before the 1d. CIT(A) to project that the authorities below were not justified both on facts and in law in not following the system of accounting of the appellant. We find that this dispute about ...
Assam Valley Plywood Private Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT360TriDel
1. The prayer of the appellants in these two appeals is that admissible deductions from their ex-outstation selling centres prices be given to them so as to make the assessable values ex-factory. They stated that the price lists submitted by them were ex-factory.2. The lower authorities have stated that the appellants were unable to prove that there were ex-factory's sales and further that they were unable to substantiate the expenses on account of deductions, such as, transport charges, handling charges etc.3. The appellants stated before us today that this finding of the lower authorities was not correct. On 8-1-1977, they had addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Central Excise, requesting him to pay a visit to their office on any working day for verification of their records.Earlier, on 6-12-1976 they had submitted 12 bills to the Superintendent for his verificatioii. There was some further correspondence between them and the Superintendent also. They are willing to produce th...
Rajanarayan and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC984Tri(Delhi)
1. Show cause notice dated 18.4.1980 had been issued to the appellants M/s. Rajanarayan & Co. to show cause why duty short paid by them in respect of the cellulosic spun yarn manufactured and removed by them during the period 28.1.1980 to 12.2.1980 should not be recovered from them. This was on the basis that on test of the sample of the yarn drawn on 28.1.1980 at it was found that as against the 31 count declared by the appellants the count was 60.2. It was pointed out that therefore duty paid at the lower rate was not proper. On subsequent sample being drawn on 12.2.1980 the count of the yarn was found to be 31 and it was for that reason that the demand for short levied duty was confined to the period 28.1.1980 to 12.2.1980. The appellants replied that their manufacture has always been of yarn of count 30 and never of yarn of count 60 and therefore the demand was incorrect. The Assistant Collector rejected the said defence and confirmed the demand. This was upheld by the Appella...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Plastic Processing Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT719aTriDel
1. This purported appeal has been filed by the Deputy Collector (I) of Central Excise, Calcutta against the order-in-Appeal noted above. The Memorandum of Appeal and the verification have been signed by the Deputy Collector. The authorisation by the Collector, as required in terms of Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act", for short), has not been enclosed to the purported appeal papers.2. When this matter was taken up on 26-5-1987, Shri N. Mookherjee, counsel for the respondents, referred to the "Cross-objection" filed by the respondents and reiterated the objections taken therein to the maintainability of the purported appeal since the Collector had not authorised the Deputy Collector to file an appeal.3. We have heard the counsel and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R. on the above point.4. It may be stated at the outset that the respondents having succeeded in their appeal before the Appellate Collector, they have no cause to file any cross-objection to the Co...
Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT605TriDel
1. The appeal in hand which was originally a Revision Petition before the Government of India stands statutorily transferred to this Tribunal to be dealt with as an appeal, is directed against the Order-in-Revision No. 7 of 1980, dated 31.7.80 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Factual backdrops : The appellant company carries on the business inter alia of manufacturing and dealing in commercial plywood and tea-chest plywood and cleared from their factory at Port Blair 10,903.11 sq. mtrs. and 50,356.39 sq. mtrs. of commercial plywood of different sizes (claimed to be rejected/defective) in the month of March-April 1978 on payment of duty of Rs. 9,378.71 and Rs. 70,055-81 respectively, but without submitting any price list and despatched the consignment to self, Madras. Since, according to the Department, the appellant company cleared the aforesaid quantities of plywood falling under T.I. 16B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, without s...
Rakesh Bulb Industries and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT756TriDel
1. All the three captioned appeals relate to the same parties and are filed under the following circumstances.M/s. Rakesh Bulb Industries are the manufacturers of Electric Bulbs falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 32 and sell all the electric bulbs manufactured by them to M/s. United Commercial Corporation, Pune. M/s. Rakesh Bulb Industries is a partnership firm consisting of four partners who are real brothers, namely, S/Shri (i) Radheylal Anantram Patodia, (ii) Manoharlal Apantram Patodia, (iii) Mahendrakumar Anantram Patodia and (iv) Rameshkumar Anantram Patodia.The said M/s. United Commercial Corporation is also a partnership firm consisting of five partners. Four out of these five partners are the same as those of M/s. Rakesh Bulb Industries. The fifth partner in this firm, i.e. M/s. United Commercial Corporation, is none other than the mother of these four brothers, namely, Mrs. Manibai Anantram Patodia.M/s. Rakesh Bulb Industries however filed price lists claiming appr...
R.S.R. Mohota Spg. and Wvg. Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT731TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spg. & Wvg. Mills Pvt.Ltd. preferred a refund claim in a sum of Rs. 61,735/- on the ground that the same had been paid by mistake as yarn duty in respect of fabrics manufactured during the period 18-6-1977 to 14-7-1977 and cleared during the period 15-7-1977 to 31-12-1977. According to them no such duty was payable in terms of notification 132 of 77 dated 18-6-1977 which was later rescinded by notification 226 of 77 dated 15-7-1977. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 28-10-1980. He held that the refund claimed by the appellants was not payable to them on merits and further held that the refund claim was in any event barred by time. On appeal the Appellate Collector agreed with the conclusion of the Assistant Collector on the merits of the claim. He therefore did not go.2. We have heard Shri G.L. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Saxena for the Deptt.3. As Shri Deshpande points ou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »