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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Guru Rajindra Rolling Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT439TriDel
1. We have here in these appeals before us a dispute whether a product produced by the assessees is a strip or not The Appellate Collector In different orders held that the products were not strips and they should be assessed under 26AA (ia) before 1.8.1983 and under Tariff Item 25(8) after 1.8.1983. The problem for us is compounded by the fact that the Assistant Collector whose orders were impugned before the Appellate Collector sometimes assessed them under Item 26AA(ii) and sometimes under 26AA(iii), and Item 25(12)(1)(9) and (1)(c) or 25(13)(iii)(a) and (b), of the 1.8.1983 tariff. In one order in original, the Assistant Collector said the assessment would be according to its width, but he does not say what the width Is. Item 25(12) covers hoops and strips while 25(13) covers coils for reroling, sheets, plates etc. This is a clear recognition that some of these goods were not strips, but might acquire categorization as plates, sheets and so on. Sub Item (it) covers plates and shee...
Janta Ayurvedic Bhawan Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC428Tri(Delhi)
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in both the appeals, a common order is being passed.2. Brief facts of the cases are that the appellant-importer has imported two consignments of Khaskhas (Poppy Seeds) and has claimed their import under OGL S.No.l as raw material under appendix-6. The importer is an actual user inasmuch as he is a manufacturer of Ayurvedic and Unani drugs and has been duly licensed for manufacture of drugs by Drug Controller and licensing authority of Delhi Administration. He is manufacturing a drug atS.No.36 of the list of items approved by the Drug Controller; the drug is known as Khaskhas til ark (distillate of poppy seeds).3. The department, on the other hand, contends that the importation of goods cannot be made under OGL inasmuch as the seeds under consideration are covered by the note in para 5 of appendix-5/Pt.B of April-March 1988-Policy. This appendix covers goods which can be imported only by canalising agency which is STC/Hindustan Ve...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Guru Bhoomiaji Metal Indus. and 11
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)LC269Tri(Delhi)
1. We have here in these appeals before us a dispute whether a product produced by the assessees is a strip or not. The Appellate Collector in different orders held that the products were not strips and they should be assessed under 26AA (ia) before 1.8.1983 and under tariff kern 25(8) after 1.8.1983. The problem for us is compounded by the fact that the Assistant Collectors whose orders were impugned before the Appellate Collector sometimes assessed them under item 26AA (ii) and sometimes under 26AA (iii), and item 25(12)(1)(9) and (1)(c) or 25(13)(iii)(a) and (b), of the 1.8.1983 tariff. In one order in original, the Assistant Collector said the assessment would be according to its width, but he does not say what the width is. Item 25(12) covers hoops and strips while 25 (13) covers coills for rerolling, sheets, plates etc. This is a clear recognition that some of these goods were not strips, but might acquire categorization as plates, sheets and so on.Sub item (ii) covers plates an...
K. Manibhai and Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC133Tri(Delhi)
1. In terms of the benefit available under Notification 198/76-CE, dated 16-6-1976 the appellants, M/s. Manibhai and Company, submitted 3 refund claims to the Assistant Collector through the Superintendent.The refund claims related to the periods July 77 to March 78; April 78 to December 78 and Jan 79 to March 79. The claims had been received in the office of the Superintendent on 5-8-1979and, on transmission by him, in the office of the Assistant Collector on 18-9-1979. Under his order dated 25-3-1980 the Assistant Collector rejected all the 3 claims as barred by limitation. On appeal therefrom the appellate Collector under his order dated 1-2-1982 allowed the claim for refund in respect of the period subsequent to 18-3-1979 but upheld the order of the Assistant Collector in respect of the earlier periods. The revision petition preferred to the Central Government against the said order is, on transfer, now before us as this deemed appeal.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Banerjee, advocate ...
Indian Organic Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC129
1. In this case appellants claim benefit of Notification No.16/82-C.E., dated 14th February, 1982 which provides partial exemption from duty in respect of polyester fibre manufactured from wastes by the process of recycling wastes. The department rejects the claim on the ground that the fibre cannot be said to be manufactured exclusively out of wastes. When the party went up in appeal before Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, the view of Assistant Collector was upheld.2. We have heard Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate and Shri Arora and Shri Rajappa, Advocates on behalf of the Appellant and Shri K.C.Sachar, JDR on behalf of the department.3. Dr. Gauri Shankar has stated that the point at issue in this matter is fully covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aluminium Corporation of India Limited v.Union of India and Ors.Union of India and Ors.v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.,, Jamshedpur, 1977 E.L.T. (J 61). It is also submit...
Smt. Premla Vohra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD167(Delhi)
1. Facts giving rise to the present appeal, which has been filed by the assessee, a resident-individual, involving assessment year 1985-86, with previous year ending on 31-3-1985, are: That at the assessment stage, the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') on account of National Savings Certificates (hereinafter to be referred to as 'NSC') purchased. Photostat copy of the NSC having been produced, the Income-tax Officer noticed the date of the issue as 12-4-1985. He negatived the claim of the assessee for deduction with the reasoning that the purchase does not relate to the year ending 31-3-1985, i.e., the year under consideration. The assessee appealed and before the learned AAC it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had given a cheque dated 27-3-1985, drawn on the State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the purchase of NSC through the Government authorised agent and due to ...
Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)Crimes634; 35(1988)DLT128; 1988(14)DRJ303
N.C. Kochhar, J.(1) Kartar Singh son of Ralla Ram and his two sons Harbans Singh @ Raju and Baldev Singh @ Pappu (the appellants), residents of house No. RZ-2062, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi were tried in case Fir No. 83/82 of police station Badarpur and have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code by Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi who sentenced each one of them to undergo imprisonment for life.(2) The prosecution story, in short, is that a water tap was installed in Gali No. 25 of Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi. On 2nd May 1982 at about 8.30 pm. Abdul Majid @ Abdul Aziz (Public Witness 2) who resided in gali No. 26, where the appellants also resided, had gone to fetch water from the said water tap and was waiting for his turn to take water. When other persons, who were in queue in front of Abdul Majid, went away after taking water and it was Abdul Majid's turn, Harbans Singh came there to fetch water and wanted to take the...
Mirah Dekor Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT357TriDel
1. On 18-2-1987, the appellant imported 288 rolls (7200 Mts.) of PVC sheets. They declared the value of the consignment at Rs. 78,697/- (on the basis of invoice price of US $ 5,904). The lower authority has objected to the importation on two counts - (i) violation of Import Trade Control (ii) mis-declaration of value. The lower authority has re-determined the value of the goods at Rs. 99,670, ordered confiscation of the goods Under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, adjudging fine in lieu of confiscation at Rs. 1,00,000/- and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant is in appeal against this order.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.To take the Import Trade Control aspect first, objection of the Additional Collector is two-fold :- (i) On examination of the consignment, the goods were actually found to be PVC floor coverings of thickness ranging betwee...
Mangalore Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT160TriDel
1. The appellants imported, under 7 Bills of Entry filed between 18-1-1980 and 31-3-1980, a set of sub-assembly and parts for flour mill. On examination of the consignment the customs felt that a complete roller mill, purifier and a set of a complete wooden plansifter were imported. Investigations were done and show cause notice was issued to the appellants; who answered but waived personal hearing. The Collector taking note of a certificate issued by Sh. V.N.Vedamurthy (Asstt. Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Anna University of Technology) held that there was, on the part of the appellants, a deliberate attempt to mis-declare the description and value of the imported goods with a view to get the same cleared under cover of an import licence issued for assemblies and spare parts of specific description as per list attached thereto. He therefore confiscated the goods but gave an option for redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,...
Agnel Charities Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD545(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax who passed an order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee is assessed in the status of an Association of Persons and is a charitable body. It runs a school. The assessee had claimed before the Income-tax Officer that the income should be exempt under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, referred to the main objects of the assessee and held that it did not exist solely for the purpose of education and it was, therefore, not entitled to benefit under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer, however, held that the objects of the trust were charitable and, he, therefore, computed the income by applying the provisions of Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. The net income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 7,560 which was below the taxable limit. As no demand was raised the assessee did not appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »