Delhi Court March 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.
Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC187
1. In this appeal, the dispute is on the valuation of the Sanding Machine imported by the appellants in April, 1980. The appellants declared its purchase price as DM 65,000/-. The Customs felt that the declared value was low. They made an enquiry with the foreign manufacturer of the machine in West Germany. The manufacturer informed the Customs that the ruling price in April, 1980 was DM 76,000 CIF.This was corroborated by the fact that three months later M/s. Wood Craft Products Ltd., Calcutta imported a similar machine for DM 81,700.The Customs, therefore, found the declared value low and after adjudication the Assistant Collector enhanced the assessable value of the machine to DM 76,000 CIF.2. The appellants plead before us that the Sanding Machine imported by them came without the two standard belt drive motors of 22 KW each and that is why their import price was low. We find from the record that the appellants have not taken such a plea before any of the lower authorities. Even i...
Collector of Customs Vs. Union Carbide India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT424TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein imported a product, namely polycyclopentadiene known as Resin P-3 in solution form. The imported product constitutes 36% of artificial resin and the remaining quantity Toluene. It was assessed initially so far as countervailing (C.V.) duty is concerned under T.I. 14 CET. Later on a less charge demand was issued to the respondents herein alleging that the C.V. duty ought to have been charged under T.I. 15A CET. The original authority confirmed the less charge demand treating the imported as artificial resins and as therefore, rightly assessable for the purpose of addl. duty i.e. C.V. duty under T.I. 15A.On appeal by the respondents herein to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the said Collector held that the goods were classifiable under T.I. 68 for the purpose of C. V. duty. He considered that the imported product is a composite one and is a binder and does not have the characteristic of plasticity and therefore, the product ...
D.D. Kochhar and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)25ITD317(Delhi)
1. These appeals pertain to assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The facts giving rise to both the appeals are common. They were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by a combined order, for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee is a firm manufacturing full range horizontal single screw, semi-automatic plastic injection and rotary fully automatic machines. The accounting year of the assessee-company ends on 81st of March every year. In respect of asst. years under consideration, the ITO made additions of Rs. 19,763 in respect of asstt. year 1976-77 and Rs. 1,23,391 in respect of asstt. year 1977-78 on account of admittedly bogus purchases to the above extent having been debited to the respective trading accounts. The purchases in question of the various items, as detailed by the ITO in paragraph 1 of his order for asst.year 1977-78 and in the asst. order for asst. year 1976-77, had been admitted by the assessee as having never been made by the firm and so, according...
Sham Dass Inder Raj Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD314(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner (A)-VIII, New Delhi. This appeal relates to the assessment year 1981-82. The appeal is directed against mainly two additions made by the Income-tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner (A).2. The assessee in this case is a firm dealing in the purchase and sale of iron sheets. For the assessment year 1981-82 the firm filed a return of its income disclosing a total income of Rs. 1,66,876. During the course of examination of accounts, the Income-tax Officer required the assessee to furnish details of opening and closing stocks both quantitywise and qualitywise. This was not supplied on the ground that the stock inventories were not traceable. The assessee did not also maintain a stock register. The Income-tax Officer was unable to verify the correctness of the trading results disclosed in the absence of a stock account. An effort was made to reconcile the stock particulars with reference to the purchase...
D.S. Builders Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD466(Delhi)
1. This acquisition appeal has been filed by the transferee under Section 269C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It arises out of the order dated 1-4-1987 of acquisition passed by the Competent Authority under Section 269F.2. The subject-matter of acquisition is free-hold plot No. S. 147, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi measuring 298 sq. yards (249.16 sq.metres). The transferor is Shri Kewal Krishan Sharma whereas the transferee is M/s. D.S. Builders, a firm at A-2/140, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The transfer took place on 3-2-1986 by means of a registered sale-deed. The apparent consideration was Rs. 9 lakhs. The transfer took place in pursuance of registered agreement to sell dated 13-11-1985. The Competent Authority initiated acquisition proceedings after recording reasons on 13-10-1986. The Competent Authority had made reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer, who vide his report dated 16-6-1986, detemiined the fair market value of this plot at Rs. 3.12 lakhs i.e. more than 36...
Boxwell India Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC157
1. The impugned order-in-appeal dated 5-4-1983 disposed of two appeals, one against an order on a classification list under which the exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification No. 89/79-C.E., dated 1-3-1979 was refused and the other under which a demand for payment of duty in respect of removals during the period 1-4-1979 to 31-3-1980 was confirmed. The second order followed the findings in the earlier order on the question of exemption. The reason for refusal of the exemption was that while the appellants claim that the value, for purposes of notification, of the plant and machinery was to exclude the value of plant and machinery permanently dismantled and removed and include such part of the plant and machinery as had been replaced and was in existence at the relevant time, the lower authorities held that apart from the value of plant and machinery at the time of installation the value of plant and machinery as was installed from time to time was also to be included wit...
Hindustan TIn Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC124Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured tin containers and supplied them in cartons belonging to the customer. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether the cost of such cartons would be includible in the value of the tin containers for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 2. The appellants rely on the following earlier judgments of this Tribunal which were in their favour :-(Tribunal) Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. United Glass (ii) 1987 (27) E.L.T. 746 (Tribunal - Larger Bench) Associated Cement Company and Ors. - Para 19 3. The learned representative of the Department pleaded that cost of packing (other than durable and returnable packing) was includible in the assessable value as per the specific provision of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and that the Section made no distinction between packing belonging to the customer and that belonging to the manufacturer.4. We have carefully considered the matter. This Tribunal's ord...
Hindustan TIn Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC198
1. The appellants manufactured tin containers and supplied them in cartons belonging to the customer. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether the cost of such cartons would be includible in the value of the tin containers for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The appellants rely on the following earlier judgments of this Tribunal which were in their favour :(Tribunal)--Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. United Glass (ii) 1987 (27) ELT 746 (Tribunal--Larger Bench)--Associated Cement Company and Ors.--Para. 19.3. The learned representative of the Department pleaded that cost of packing (other than durable and returnable packing) was includible in the assessable value as per the specific provision of Section 4(4)(d)(i) and that the section made no distinction between packing belonging to the customer and that belonging to the manufacturer.4. We have carefully considered the matter. This Tribunal's o...
S. Arjun Singh Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR91(Delhi)
1. These are nine application by the assessed under section 27(3) of the wealth-tax Act, 1957, and pertain to the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1966-67 to 1972-73. In these application, the assessed has asked for the following three questions to be referred : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the valuation of the property computed in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal be not less than that returned by the assessed itself 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee : [1980]122ITR700(SC) were not relevant for the purpose of determination of valuation of the property under rule 1 BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law...
Collector of Customs Vs. Hicks thermometers (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(42)ELT55TriDel
1. The less charge demand confirmed by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 27-6-1983 was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 31-3-1984 on the ground the demand was not served within the period specified in Section 28(i) of the Customs Act. This appeal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri Chakraborthy for the department. Shri D.N. Mehta, Advocate for the respondents has filed his written arguments and indicated therein that he would not be appearing today. We have perused the same and the necessary papers.3. According to the respondents payment of duty was on 29-6-1981 and the less charge demand (under notice dated 29-12-1981) was served on them on 4-1-1982 and hence the demand was barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Shri Chakraborthy submits that the payment of duty was not on 29-6-1981 but on 1-7-1981.4. As far as service of the demand is concerned the notice therefor is dated 29-12-1981. The Coll...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »