Delhi Court July 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.
Lamba Jeweller Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-21-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT324TriDel
1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order absolutely confiscating the seized 2 Kruggrrands of gold of South Africa origin weighing 67.900 gms and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, the appellants have filed their instant appeals.2. Factual backdrops: Appellant firm M/s. Lamba Jewellers is a licensed Gold Dealer and has three partners, namely, S/Shri Virender Singh - appellant herein - Manmohan Singh and Parambir Singh. The other appellant Shri Manmohan Singh, son of Shri Jaswant Singh is the resident of New Delhi. It was the case of the Department that on 3-7-1984, the officers concerned visited the premises of the appellant firm M/s. Lamba Jewellers, scrutinized the statutory records and checked the entire stock of gold and gold ornaments and found the same tallying physically with the balance shown in the G.S. 11 and G.S. 12 Registers maintained by the firm. At the time of search three partners of the said firm, namely, Sardar Manmohan Singh Lam...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bata (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC516Tri(Delhi)
1. Under order dated 13-12-1979 the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the demands raised under three show cause notices dated 4-8-1979, 9-8-79 and 4-9-1979 respectively and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents M/s. Bata (India) Ltd. Under two other orders dated 11-3-1980 the Collector confirmed further demands for duty but did not impose any further penalty in view of the penalty already imposed under order dated 13-12-1979. The issue in all these matters related to the classification of the cutting dies and cutting discs manufactured by the respondents which they claimed fell under Item 68 GET. The Collector observed that the goods fell under Item 51-A(iv) GET and that though the Company had been informed about such a classification under an earlier order of the Assistant Collector and had been directed not to remove the goods except under the said classification they had chosen to ignore the same and had been removing the goods without payment o...
Metal Extruders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1990)(28)LC488Tri(Delhi)
1. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise arrived at a finding that the assessees had cleared the copper wire rods without payment of duty during the period 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979 under notification 119/' 6-CE.The show cause notice was issued on 8.9.1980. In the written submission dated 9.7.1987, the assessees, M/s. Metal Extruders (India) Pvt. Ltd. say that the notice cannot extend over the period beyond 3.3.1980. By this they evidently mean that the demand was time-barred for the period before 3.3.1980.2 Since the dispute covers the period 1.4.1978 to 31.3.1979, there seems to be considerable force in the submission of the assessees. In his order No V-26A(15) 16/80 dated 24.8.1981 the Assistant Collector does not detail any fraud or suppression or mis-statement the factory was guilty of.3. The case was based on the fact that they used imported scrap. Now the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay in his order No.C-898/Bll-209/83 dated 25.5.1983 correctly points out that imp...
Unipac Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT242TriDel
1. The appellants imported "Automatic Form Fill and Seal Machine for Flexible Packaging Materials with Gas flushing" for utilising in packing food products, (hereinafter referred to as FFS). The goods were assessed for customs duty under Heading 84.19 CTA. There is no dispute about the basic classification. The appellants however asked that the benefit of Notification No. 47/84 Cus. be extended to the imported goods.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the request. He found that the imported goods were "Form", Fill and Seal Machines with sample device for gas flushing" and observed that "since the benefit of (the said) notification as claimed is available only for gas flushing packaging system, the Form, Fill and Seal machines imported cannot be extended the benefit under the said serial No. 7 of the notification. The benefit under serial No. 6 of the notification also cannot be extended since the machine imported is capable of only flushing and not vacuumising as required." 3. The app...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eastern Chemofarb Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC4
1. The question for decision in this' appeal by Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur is whether the respondents product marketed under brand name of CALPOL 40-00, CALPOL 72-23, CALPOL 10-214, CALPOL 72-250 and CALPOL 42-00 are Maleic Resins eligible to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 157/81, dated 29-8-1981.2. There is no dispute that the respondents manufacture fail under Item 15A of the First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. the respondents were paying duty in respect of their manufacture under this item till September, 1981 under the description Polyester resin. On 28-8-1981, the respondents filed classification list claiming their manufacture to be Maleic resin fully exempt from duty under Notification No. 157/81, dated 29-8-1981 as amended. Samples of the product were tested at the Customs House Laboratory, Calcutta and the Chemical Examiner in his report stated that the product is Polyester resin. The respondents disputed the correctness of the Chemical...
income-tax Officer Vs. Auto Meters Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD478(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the Income-tax Officer against the order of the Commissioner (A) and the cross-objection is by the assessee. The Income-tax Officer feels aggrieved by the direction of the Commissioner (A) to allow deduction of the sum of Rs. 3,25,988 representing the initial contribution to be made to the gratuity fund.2. The assessee-company debited its profit and loss account by a sum of Rs. 3,72,424 towards gratuity liability. Of this, sum of Rs. 3,25,988 represented provision for payment of initial contribution of gratuity as per actuarial valuation and the balance represented the amount paid during the year. While the Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction for the payment made during the year, he declined to allow the provision made for gratuity of Rs. 3,25,988 on the ground that it was only a provision made for the payment of gratuity and there was a prohibition imposed by Section 40A(7) with -effect from 1-4-1973 to allow deductions for provisions made towards grat...
Phelps and Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: (1988)25ITD96(Delhi)
1 In this appeal by the assessee, the only issue involved is regarding the claim of interest under Section 244(1A) in respect of self-assessment tax paid which was refunded. According to the assessee, it is not disputed by the department that the payment was made after 1-4-1975 but what is being disputed is that self-assessment tax is not an amount paid as a consequence of assessment order and, therefore, interest is not allowable. Reference was made to the provisions contained in Section 140A(2) where it has been mentioned that after a regular assessment has been made the amount that is paid as self-assessment tax shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment. Therefore, though the amount was paid prior to the assessment, in view of this provision, the claim of the assessee is fully justified that it should be treated as payment made as a consequence of the regular assessment. Reliance was also placed in Delhi High Court decision in National Agricultural. Co-opera...
H.B. Kapoor Vs. Kehar Surgical and Allied Products (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-20-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ113
S.B. Wad, J.(1) This is landlady's Revision Petition against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her eviction petition on 8/11/1983.(2) The premises in question are the Ground Floor of property No. 254, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The respondents are the tenant. A lease deed was created in favor of the tenant under Section 21 for three years with , effect from 14-7-1975. After the expiry of this lease, a fresh lease was created in favor of the tenant. The rent was raised from Rs. 1900.00 to Rs. 2300.00 per month. According to the tenant this increase was made as a new lease was created for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the tenant was permitted to have his sales office in the premises. According to the landlady the new lease was only for residential purposes as before.(3) The landlady is a qualified Doctor by profession and was in Government service. After her retirement from service in 1972 she was residing at Dehradun. She developed severe ArthrIT is in both her knee...
T.P.N. S. Chettiar Parvathi Vilas Vs. C. C. E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT79TriDel
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is whether the processes of cutting unmanufactured tobacco leaf into small pieces, labelling such pieces with strings or rings bearing trade name and packing them into containers bearing trade labels constitute "manufacture" of "Chewing tobacco", a manufactured tobacco product, falling under item No. 411(5) of . the Central Excise Tariff ScheduletCET, for short). It is stated for the appellant that there is no addition of scent or any other ingredient. The lower authorities have held that the aforesaid processes resulted in the manufacture of chewing tobacco, and, on that basis, rejected the appellant's claim for refund of duty paid on clearance of such tobacco.2. We have heard Shri P.S. Nagarathnam, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R., for the respondent.3. Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, defines "manufacture" as including any process incidental or ancillary to the completi...
Simon Carves India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC286
1. M/s. Simon Arve India Ltd. is a Company with registered office at Calcutta. They have one of their units at Adityapur, Jamshedpur. This unit at Adityapur is engaged exclusively in the work of fabrication of steel materials. In respect of such work they filed a classification list on 5-4-1975. This list was received back after approval under covering letter dated 9-9-1975 granting benefit of exemption under Notification 119/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975 in respect of such work.2. Subsequently show cause notice dated 19-6-1980 was received by the appellants alleging that they are not entitled to benefit under Notification 119/75-C.E., in respect of fabrication work entrusted to them by the project division of their company itself either at Calcutta or at Bombay and that the declaration filed by them under Notification No. 120/75-C.E. without disclosure of these facts was a mis-declaration and that they had failed to furnish the requisite information though called for under various letters...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »