Delhi Court September 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.
Gangapur S.S.K. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC326
1. The appellant preferred a claim for refund of Rs. 9,06,946.89 in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 132/82, dated 21-4-1982 on account of sugar produced during the period from 1-5-1982 to 30-9-1982 (quantity : 31,415 quintals) in excess of the average production in the corresponding period of the three preceding sugar years. At a later stage, in response to a show cause notice, the appellant recalculated the refund due as Rs. 8,48,931.44. After holding adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad, passed an order on 18-12-1982 sanctioning only Rs. 3,09,687.98 and rejecting the claim for the balance amount. Briefly put, this order was based on the following considerations :- (i) the appellants' factory had no production in the preceding three sugar years; (ii) Notification No. 132/82 did not allow concession to such factories. Only on issue of the amending Notification No. 193/82, dated 11-6-1982, such factories became eligible for the conces...
Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise Overruled
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC370
1. The department assessed the self-starter under item 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, because they held that it was an electric motor.The manufacturers, M/s. Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. asked that it should be assessed under item 68, because they say this is the most suitable item, since item 34A which covers parts of motor vehicle, does not include such motors.2. At the hearing, the learned counsel for M/s. Sahney Paris Rhone Ltd. presented five propositions. They are reproduced below and will be discussed in the appropriate places :- (a) It ignores the Trade understanding that a "Self Starter" is not an electric motor." (b) It is based on personal observations which cannot be made the basis of classification. (c) It ignores the 1SI specifications which are a piece of evidence showing that "Self Starter" is a distinct commodity from "electric motor." 2. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atul Glass and Bombay High Court judgment in Sahney Steel & Pressworks Item 34A re...
Appollo Tubes Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD156(Delhi)
That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in allowing the deduction Under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at 6 per cent for a period of 12 months as against the deduction claimed for a period of 15 months forming: the previous year of the appellant firm.2. On the above ground, we have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted before us that we should interpret the relevant provisions of law liberally so as to advance the benefit available to the assessee to cover in a particular assessment year, period of more than 12 months, if that is the previous year of the assessee. For this, he supported his submissions with a reference and reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v.Simpson & Co. [1980] 122 ITR 283. In the case of the assessee, the previous year for the assessment year 1979-80 has been accepted by the revenue as consisting of 15 months. H...
P. Nijhawan Vs. K. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT367
P.K. Babri, J.(1) This civil revision has been brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act challenging the order dated October 6, 1986 of the Additional Rent Controller, ShriA.K. Garg, dismissing the eviction petition brought by the petitioner on the ground covered by clause(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. (2) It is now not disputed before me that the petitioner is the owner- landlord of the premises in question and the same had been let out to the respondent for residential purposes only. The facts as have emerged from the testimony of the petitioner coming as AW1 are that he bad purchased the property in question which consists of ground floor, first floor and barsati floor in the year 1963. Ex, AW1/ 1 is the copy of the lease-deed vide which the plot was taken from the Delhi Development Authority and thereafter the construction was made by the petitioner on the said plot. Initially the petitioner lived on the first fl...
Santosh Madhavan Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1987
Reported in: ILR1987Delhi518
P.K. Bahn, J. (1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the detention order dated the 4th November, 1985 passed by the Commissioner & Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA) and also a declaration made under Section 9(1) of the said Act made by Shri M. L. Wadhwan, Additional Secretary, Government of India, respondent No. 2. It was the case of the detaining authority that on the 10th May, 1985, the Superintendent, Special Customs Preventive Unit, T (2) The petitioner had challenged the detention order on various grounds wch I need not reproduce because counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that now the petitioner does not challenge the detention order. Counsel for the petitioner has now confined the challenge only to the declaration made under Section 9(1) by respondent No....
Milkfood Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC49
1. The appellants M/s. Milkfood Limited preferred a refund claim in respect of duty paid by them under Item lB Central Excise Tariff during the period 1-8-1974 to 8-4-1977. The said claim dated 20-7-1981 was received in the office of the Assistant Collector on 24-7-1981. Under order dated 18-8-1981 the Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as barred by time. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) under order dated 21-10-1983. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri A.C. Gulati, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar, SDR, for the respondent.3. This Tribunal had held in Miles India Ltd. (1983 ELT 1026) that in a claim for refund preferred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act the period of limitation prescribed therein will have to be applied and that it will not be open to the party to seek recourse to the provisions of the Limitation Act on the ground that the payment of duty was under a mistake, inviting th...
Collector of Customs Vs. Heeral Enterprises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT120TriDel
1. In response to notice of date of hearing, the respondents by their communication dated September 16, 1987 (received in the Tribunal on 21-9-1987) have urged that the appeal presented by the appellants is time-barred and that on merits also greases would be assessable under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and not under Tariff Item 11A (ii) ibid.2. The appeal first came up for hearing on 22-9-1987. According to practice and procedure followed in the Tribunal where the impugned order has disposed of a number of appeals before the lower appellate authority, as many appeals are required to be filed before the Tribunal. Smt. Chander brought to our notice that two supplementary appeals to comply with the practice and procedure would have to be filed though no fee is required to be paid by Revenue. She prayed for permission to do so. Permission for the same and time were granted and that has been done. Smt. Chander in view of the written submissions of the respondents...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Bareilly Corpn. Bank
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)27ITD1a(Delhi)
1. This is a departmental appeal on the short ground as to whether the learned CIT (Appeals) was justified in giving relief of Rs. 2,88,200 to the assessee-bank on account of valuation of the closing stock of the Government securities, held by the assessee-bank as its stock-in-trade.2. The relevant facts are very brief and may be noted. The asses-see is a banking concern and as part of its stock-in-trade it holds, inter alia, Government securities. Its accounting period is calendar year. Up to the calendar year 1981, corresponding to assessment year 1982-83.the assessee-bank has been valuing the Government securities in its stock at market price. In the accounting period under consideration, however, the assessee switched on to valuation of the closing stock at cost or market price, whichever was lower. As a result of this change in the method of valuation of the closing stock, the value of the closing stock got reduced by Rs. 9,03,819.34p. The IAC (Asst.) recorded the aforesaid chang...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. I.T.C. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC398
1. The facts of the case relating to appeal No. 858/83-D, briefly stated, are that Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd., Madras (hereinafter called the assessee), are engaged in the manufacture inter alia of printed cartons out of duty paid paper boards procured by them. The assessee had been paying duty on printed cartons under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule (hereinafter referred to as 'CET') to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, ever since this item was inserted in the Tariff in 1975. On 11-3-1978, the assessee wrote to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras, requesting exemption from payment of duty on printed cartons on the plea that they were "products of printing industry" within the meaning of Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975, as amended by Notification No. 122/75, dated 5-5-1975. In support of their plea, they relied on Order-in-Revision No. 2057/77 passed by the Central Government acting as Revision Authority under the Central Excises...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jayant Paper Box Factory
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC365
1. The Captioned appeal is against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that' the respondents manufactured corrugated cardboard cartons using duty paid kraft paper. The corrugated board manufactured by them for the purpose was out of fluted gummed layers of kraft paper with a layer of bituminised kraft paper fixed on one side and kraft paper layer on the other side. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 142/82, dated 22.4.1982 under which corrugated board cartons made out of duty paid kraft paper were exempted from duty. The lower authorities approved the classification list filed in the above terms but later demanded duty for the reason that the appellants had produced cartons using bituminised kraft paper whereas the notification covered only the use of kraft paper as such. His findings in this regard are as under :- "It is very clear that Notification 144/82 was not available to the assessee as the corrugated Pape...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »