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.
Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT732TriDel
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the element of compounded excise duty on cotton yarn payable, and paid, at the time of clearance of fabrics (as provided under Central Excise Rules 96V/96W) and expressed with reference to the variety and area of fabrics forms part of the assessable value of the fabrics. The appellant's contention before the Collector (Appeals) was that the compounded duty was nothing but duty on the fabrics and not duty on yarn at the spindle point.Hence the question of including the yarn duty element in the assessable value of fabrics did not arise. The further contention was that Sec.4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (The Act" for short) laid down that value for assessment purposes, would not include duty.If the compounded duty were to be included in the assessable value, it would amount to levy of duty on duty. Further, the yarn duty did not form part of the cost structure of the fabrics.2. In his order dated 18-10-1982 which i...
Hindustan Electronics (Gem Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT252TriDel
1. M/s. Hindustan Electronics has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise & Customs Department conducted raid on the show room and godown of the appellant and the residential premises of the Proprietor Shri M. Mohindroo. The Preventive Staff prepared a panchnama dated 20-11-198* detaining the seized goods worth Rs. 59,300/- as shown in Annexures A, B & C of panchnama. The officers also detained 1080 video cassettes valued at Rs. 1,89,000/- vide Annexure E of the said panchnama. A show cause notice was issued requiring the appellant to show cause why the goods under seizure valued at Rs. 1,35,435,'- be not confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 for contravention of Section 3(1) of Imports/Exports (Control) Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 11C, I ID, HE and 11F ibid ...
Universal Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC7
1. The point in dispute in this case is whether the cost of cardboard boxes (cartons), in which the appellants' goods are packed, should be included in the assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act.2. This order is confined to the aforesaid one issue only. Against the impugned order-in-appeal, the department has also filed another appeal No. E-2093 of 1986-A. The issues raised in the department's appeal do not relate to packing. Those issues will be dealt with in a separate order when the department's appeal is heard.3. The facts in brief are that the appellants manufacture travel goods (moulded luggage articles), such as, suitcases, brief cases and vanity cases in their factory at Satara in Maharashtra. During the material period, these goods were liable to central excise duty under item No.48A of the Central Excise Tariff, as then in force. The goods are first put in a polythene bag which is then placed in a corrugated card boa...
Assistant Collector of Central Vs. Johnston Pumps India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT1008TriDel
1. M/s. Uohnston Pumps (India) Ltd. claimed a refund of Rs. 44,561.23 on electric motors on the ground that they were entitled to exemption up to a clearance of rupees five lakhs under Notification No.71/78-C.E., but they could not avail the benefit when removing the goods. The Assistant Collector, Ghaziabad, passed Order No. 76 of 1977, dated 30-9-1980 rejecting the claim, but he did not say very much why he rejected it except that Notification No. 71/78-C.E. did not provide "for any incentive to small scale manufacturer by way of granting refunds in cash concession should have been availed of by the party at the time of clearances" (sic), and that, moreover, any notification exempting excisable goods from duty did not permit any refund to be made, if any duty on such goods had already been paid. On perusal of the relevant gate passes, went on the Assistant Collector, he found that the goods had been sold to government buyers and. that duty had already been charged. "Now" concluded t...
Miss Shikha Gupta Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-19-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD546(Delhi)
1. The above captioned appeals by the three different assessees have brought before us the following issue for our determination : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax has jurisdiction to revise an assessment already covered by limitation in terms of Section 263(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by availing himself of the substituted Section 263(2) inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1-10-1984 2. Before we come to the legal aspect of this issue we like to have a close look on the facts of these cases.The following statistical data culled out of the relevant records, gives in juxtaposition, the assessment years involved, the date of making the assessments, the service of notice Under Section. 263, the date of hearing, the date of order Under Setion. 263 and the date on which limitation had struck the proceedings before the insertion of Section 263(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1-10-1984 (gi...
Decor India and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1150Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the order-in-original No. 29-C/86, dated 4-12-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, all the appellant who are partners and running their business under the name and style of M/s. Decor- India, New Delhi, have preferred their separate appeals, which were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. Factual backdrops: The appellant, M/s. Decor India is a partnership firm and M/s. K.K. Exports is a sister concern of the said firm. The other appellants herein are the partners of the appellant firm M/s.Decor India, New Delhi. On 18-2-1986, the authorities concerned searched the business premises of the appellant M/s. Decor India and its sister concern, M/s. K.K. Exports, and recovered 4672 rolls of Vinyl Wall Coverings imported from United Kingdom and West Germany and 304 pcs of Acrylic Pile Rugs. The same were seized on 19-2-19S6 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statements of the partners were also recorded. After the usu...
Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC226
1. Aluminium 'dross' is a residue which forms in the furnace during melting of aluminium ingots and also to some extent during subsequent treatment and holding operations of molten baths in the furnace. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether such dross can be considered as excisable 'goods'. The appellants admitted before us that aluminium dross was saleable commodity and it had commercial and industrial uses.Yet, placing reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment at 1980 E.L.T.146 (Bom) - Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and another v. A.K.Bandyopadhayay and Ors. which was later confirmed by the Division Bench of the same High Court on 26-2-1986 in Appeal No. 524 of 1980, they claimed that dross was not goods and hence not liable to duty. There is no dispute between the parties that if dross is held to be goods, it would fall for classification under the residuary item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.2. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that the appella...
Vulcan Level Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT435TriDel
1. The Appellants imported, under the Bill of Entry No. 618/163, dated 29.6.81, goods described as "machine knives-semi-finished cold rolled, cold drawn carbon steel strip in carburised form having width 35 mm and thickness 2.5 mm in spiral coil form of varying dia and length for the manufacture of blades/knives for leather machinery". The Appellants sought classification of the goods under Heading 82.06 CTA but the goods were assessed to customs duty under Heading 7333/40 CTA.Aggrieved appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector who rejected the claim for assessment of the goods under Heading 73.15(1) CTA and confirmed assessment made by the Asstt. Collector. Hence the present appeal.2. Sh. S. Ganesh, the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that it is not correct to say that the Appellants desired assessment under Heading 73.15(1) though this assessment would give them partial relief.He submitted that the Appellants throughout asked for clarification of the goods u...
income-tax Officer Vs. Deepak Raj Narang
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-18-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD139(Delhi)
1. This is a departmental appeal directed against the order of the AAC for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee is assessed in the status of HUF. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold jewellery for Rs. 1,03,500. The ITO found that the cost of acquisition of this jewellery in 1966 was Rs. 28,000. The assessee contended before the ITO that for the purposes of capital gain, jewellery was not a capital asset till the amendment of Section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 1972 w.e.f. 1-4-1973. The assessee, therefore, contended that the cost of acquisition of the jewellery should be taken as on 31-3-1972 and the market value as on that day should be adopted.According to the assessee, such value was Rs. 53,000 and he worked out the capital gains at Rs. 50,000. The ITO, however, determined the capital gains at Rs. 75,500.2. When the matter came before the AAC, it was contended that following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bai Shiri...
Rajendra Ravindra Printers (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT426TriDel
1. The item of dispute in this appeal is a memory card brought by a passenger and which the appellant calls a part of photo-composing machine used in printing industry. This part had been taken by the passenger, Ravindra Kumar Gupta, when he left India in September, 1980.He also obtained an export certificate at the time of his departure.When he returned, the passenger produced the certificate with the part to the customs and the part was cleared free of duty, on the strength of the export certificate he produced. However, when re-examined, the officers found that the part brought back by the passenger was not the part taken out by him under the export certificate. The Assistant Collector, thereupon, confiscated the part under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and a penalty of Rs. 2000/- under Section 112 of the same Act. Duty was also recovered on the part.2. The learned counsel for the appellant said that they had been penalised for a very small tech...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »