Delhi Court February 1988 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.
Malayagiri Sandalwood Oil Vs. Collector of C.Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT283TriDel
1. This appeal is against Order-in-Appeal No. 204-CE/KNP/83, dated 13-9-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi, rejecting the appeal filed by M/s. Malayagiri Sandalwood Oil Distillery, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) against order dated 27-8-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) held that the process of extraction of sandalwood oil from sandalwood undertaken by the appellants amounted to a process of manufacture, that the resultant sandalwood oil was a new product different from the raw material sandalwood and that, therefore, the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 119/75 dated 30-4-1975 was not admissible to the appellants. The Collector (Appeals) also found that the period of limitation applicable to the demand of duty was five years because of the suppression of material facts on the part of the appellants. In the result, he upheld the Assistant Collector's order e...
Bengal National Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC12
1. The issue which arises for determination in the present appeal is whether dyed acrylic hand knitting yarn manufactured by the appellants from acrylic tops fell under Item No. 18(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Schedule is hereinafter referred to as the "CET") as "bulked yarn" or under Item No. 18(i), CET as "other than textured yarn" during the period 1976-77 (it is seen from the show cause notice that the period of dispute is actually from 1.3.1975 to 30.4.1976). The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise held that the goods were to be classified as bulked yarn (textured yarn) under Item No. 18(ii). This finding was essentially based on the report of the Deputy Chief Chemist, Central Revenues Control Laboratory (to whom a sample was sent) that the scouring and dyeing imparted to the yarn a fluffy appearance, a characteristic of bulked yarn. In appeal, the orders were upheld by the Collector (Appeals) by his impugned order dated 10.11.86 which i...
Shri Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC217
1. This appeal is against Order No.l/82/TI-29A dated the 23rd November, 1982, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Indore, whereby he held that the benefit of duty concession in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 56/78 dated 1-3-1978 was not admissible in respect of two air conditioners installed by the appellants, one in the pump maintenance (burn-out) Section and the other in the instrument shop, on the ground that these two places were used for purposes other than for the manufacture of goods. The Additional Collector, therefore, called upon the appellants to pay the differential duty on the two air conditioners in terms of the show cause notice dated 22-12-1979 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Ujjain.2. We have heard Shri Vivek Gambhir, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative, for the respondent and have read the record.3. Central Excise Notification No. .56/78 issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) fixes ...
Kelvinator of India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD88(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee-company is directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) relating to the assessment year 1982-83.2. The first ground is that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the brought forwa,rd business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s.Aravalli Svachalit Vahan Ltd. would be eligible for set off under Section 72A only in the assessment year 1984-85 and not in the current assessment year. In order to understand this ground, some facts have to be given. The appellant-company is a manufacturer of refrigerators, cash registers, tools, etc. M/s. Aravalli Svachalit Vahan Ltd. was a company carrying on its business of manufacture of scooters at Alwar in Rajasthan. That company was amalgamated with the assessee-company with effect from 1-7-1980. At the time of such amalgamation, there were certain losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Aravalli Svachalit Vahan Ltd. which had been claimed to be carried forward and set off against the profit of the assessee-compa...
Smt. Gopi Devi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD50(Delhi)
1. As a feedback of the facts, para 2 of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner is being reproduced hereunder ; The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant was totally blind during the previous years, but she did not make a claim for the deduction available under Section 80U in these years. She made the aforesaid claim for the first time in the assessment year 1981-82 and the Income-tax Officer allowed the same. Later, she moved before the Income-tax Officer applications under Section 154 urging that the deduction admissible under Section 80U may be allowed to her for the years under consideration. The ITO (Shri S. Hussain), accepted the same by his orders under Section 154 dated 26-6-1981 and 27-6-1981. Thereafter, his successor ITO (Shri P.N. Chaudhary) noted that he had wrongly admitted the appellant's claim under Section 154 in view of the Allahabad High Court judgments in the cases of Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 347 and Sh...
Collector of Customs Vs. Wyeth Labs Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC83
1. By this application the Collector of Customs has pleaded for condonation of delay for filing the appeal beyond the period of three months as stipulated under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act.2. Brief facts of the case are that order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay bearing No. S-49/598/8 Cl. dated 31-3-1984 is stated to have been received as per C.A. 3 Form by the Collector on 28-4-1984.The appeal in the Tribunal against this order of Collector (Appeals) has been received in the Registry on 12-11-1984. The respondents by an affidavit filed on the 8th May, 1987 and received in the Registry on 23rd June 1987, among other things, have stated that there was a delay of 113 days in filing the appeal over that prescribed under Section 35B of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 19**. In fact, the appeal has been filed under Section 129A(2) of the Customs Act. However, on point regarding the delay, the respondents plea is that it has been filed beyond time by 113 days. In the ...
Paper Print and Products Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT426TriDel
1. The question arising for decision in this appeal is classification for the purpose of Central Excise duty of the appellants manufacture Printed Waxed Paper and Un-waxed Printed Paper cut into sheets and reels for the period 17.3.82 to 20.1.86 when the appellants appear to have filed another classification list which has been approved exempting them from duty under Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-12-1982 - whether the two fall under Tariff Item 68 as held by the lower Appellate authority and the original authority or Tariff item 17(2) and exempt under Notification No 63/82, dated 28.2.1982? 2. The admitted position is that the appellants use duty paid Poster paper as base material for their finished product Printed Waxed paper and Un-waxed Printed Paper cut into sheets and reels. Prior to 17.3.82, the appellants manufactures were hold classifiable under Tariff Item 17(2) and appellants were clearing the goods after paying 15% Central Excise duty availing of benefit of concessional ...
Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC416Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The issue involved in the appeal is the classification of ANFO. The product is produced by mixing ammonium nitrate with fuel oil and used for the purpose of blasting of rocks. This appeal was heard along with other appeals on the same issue in the case of M/s.Singareni Collieries Ltd., in Appeal Nos. E/462/88-C, E/2577/87-C and the matter was argued by another advocate on behalf of the appellants in that case.2. In the proceedings in this case, a show cause notice was issued on 7.4.1987 and the duty was demanded in respect of ANFO produced and captively consumed by the appellants for the period upto 9th February, 1987 as prepared explosives under Heading 3601.00 upto 9.2.1987 and Heading 3602.00 from 10.2.1987. They were alleged to have manufactured the goods without the Central Excise licence and cleared the same without payment of duty and observing the necessary Central Excise formalities as required ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rajvansh Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC590Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the grant of refund the department has filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The respondent company submitted two refund claims amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,975.35 (revised) on the grounds that under Notification No. 80/80, dated 19.6.1980, they were entitled for full exemption from payment of duty on the first clearances of Rs. 5 lakhs and thereafter 25% exemption from payment of duty on the next Rs. 10 lakhs clearance. It was also stated by the respondent that they had paid full duty on the clearance taken during the period 4.4.l980 to 27.5.1980 and 27.5.1980 to 7.10.1980 instead of availing exemption under the said Notification. On receipt of the said two refund claims the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad rejected the claim for refund of Rs. 50,000/- relating to the period 4.4.1980 to 27.5.1980 on the ground that the same was time-barred as it was received in the Divisional Office on 8.12.1980, i.e. to say after the expiry ...
Scan Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC124
1. One of the main points of controversy in the appeal referred to the Larger Bench now constituted relates to classification of electronic colour scanner Model Magnascan 510. The appellants claim its assessment under Heading 84.35 CTA 1975 whereas the department contends that the classification falls under Heading 90.10 ibid. A Bench of this Tribunal in its judgment in the case of UNITED OFFSET PROCESS PVT. LTD. [1985 (19) ELT 242 - Tribunal] had held that the colour scanner falls under Tariff Heading 90.10. Normal Bench dealing with the appeal of the appellants had some reservations in following the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal referred to the Larger Bench.2. Another point involved in this present appeal is about the valuation of the goods in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act.3. The Larger Bench heard the matter at length on 28th & 29th September, 1987 and reserved their judgment. While the Bench was deliberating upon the judgment to be recorded, the...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »