Delhi Court April 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.
Pharmakab Laboratories Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC618Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured P.P.Medicines falling under T.I. 14E in two of their units. In the year 1979-80, the value of their clearances from the two units were as under :(a) PP Medicines excluding life saving drugs : Rs. 10,68,631.62(b) Life saving drugs : Rs. 5,83,464.70 Total: Rs. 16,52,096.32 The appellants did not claim benefit of any exemption notification until 26.6.1980 when in terms of Notification No. 80/80 dated 19.6.1980 read with Notification No. 106/80 dated 19.6.1980 read with notification No. 106/80 dated 19-6-1980 they claimed that they became eligible for the benefit of exemption for the reason that the aggregate value of their clearances for the purpose of said exemption notifications for the year 1979-80 was only Rs. 10,68,631.62 as even though the value of the life saving drugs manufactured by them were not exempt during 1979-80 but sin...
industrial Factors Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC596Tri(Delhi)
1. Since common issues of classification are involved in all the appeals under consideration, a common order is being passed.2. Main appeal is the one given the No. 2097/84-C which decides the question of classification of a product known as composite containers.The appellant seeks to classify the said product under T.I. 17(4)/17(3) after 1983 Budget and thus avail the benefit of Notification 66/82 dated 28-2-1982 as amended by Notification 151/83 dated 13-5-1983. On the other hand, the department has classified the said product under T.I. 68 of Central Excise Tariff as it then stood. The other appeals pertain to the refund claims of duty paid by the appellant in terms of the department's classification under Tariff Item 68.3. Learned advocate for the appellant Shri P.A.S. Rao has conceded at the outset that there is a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Textile Paper Tube Co. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 35 which is against the appellant. The goods und...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dunlop India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC379Tri(Delhi)
1. These are a bunch of appeals, in some of which M/s. Dunlop India are the appellants and in others, they are the respondents, since in those cases the appeals have been filed by the department. The issue being the same, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts are that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. declared to the Excise Authorities that they were manufacturing various types of scraps.However it was claimed by them that, in fact, they were not undertaking "manufacture" of scraps as such, since these products were in the nature of waste products and they were not 'goods' within the meaning of Central Excise Act.3. As an alternative argument, it was claimed by them that even if the products in question were to be considered as excisable goods, then they were covered by exemption under Notification No. 179/77 dated 18.6.1977 because they were produced without the aid of power.4. The view taken by Revenue is that the products in question are produced in the cou...
Modipon Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD624(Delhi)
1. These appeals are by the assessee for asst. years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and raise a common point. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The assessee Modipon Ltd. has a factory at Modi Nagar in Distt.Ghaaiabad, U.P. In the accounting year relevant to asst. year 1971-72, it claimed an expenditure of Rs. 27,892 and in the subsequent accounting year an expenditure of Rs, 4,802 on the removal of a cremation ground that existed in front of the factory gate. The expenditure of Rs. 27,892 had been capitalised and was not claimed as a revenue expenditure before the ITO. A claim was, however, made before the AAC, who did not admit the additional ground. However, on a further appeal to this Tribunal, the ground was allowed to be raised. That is how the CIT (A) has decided this contention against the assessee and it is in appeal before us.3. The admitted facts are that a cremation ground existed in front of the factory gate of the assessee. The cremation ground belonged to the...
income-tax Officer Vs. Tarlock Singh and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)29ITD139(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue arising out of the assessee's assessment to income-tax for asst. year 1983-84. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the material placed before us. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the AAC erred in holding the relief of self-occupation Under Section 23(2) of the IT Act is also available to HUF.3. The assessee is a Hindu undivided family and resides in a house owned by itself. The question is whether in terms of Section 23(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the deemed income from the self-occupied property has to be restricted to 10 per cent of the total income. This benefit is granted by Sub-section (2) of Section 23 in respect of "a house or part of house in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence". The ITO took the view that this benefit is available only to an individual and not to any other assessable entity.For this he found suppor...
Oswal Vanaspati and General Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT691TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order-in-appeal No. 331-CE/CHG/83, dated 10-10-1983, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the Electrolytic Cells, 56 in number, manufactured by the appellants, for production of Hydrogen Gas, constituted "complete machinery" for the purpose of Central Excise Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975. If the answer is in the affirmative, the appellants were rightly denied the benefit of duty exemption contained in the said notification since the second proviso therein stipulated that the concession shall not apply to "complete machinery" manufactured in a factory and meant for producing or processing any goods, even if they were intended for use in the same factory in which they were manufactured or in any other factory of the same manufacturer. If, on the other hand, the answer is in the negative, the denial of the duty exemption to the appellants in respect of the elect...
Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. Vs. Red Club Products Corporation
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)ARBLR1(Delhi); 35(1988)DLT177
Jagdisli Chandra, J. (1) This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application moved under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment in the plaint. At present the defendant in the suit is 'Red Club Products Corporation' which is a partnership firm having its principal place of business at premises 19/21,Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. In para No. 2 of the plaint the plaintiff expressed its ignorance about the names and other particulars of the partners of the defendant firm and so filed an application, along with the plaint, under Order 30 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the defendant to furnish a statement of the names and addresses of its partners. Consequently, the defendant firm provided the plaintiff with a copy of its partnership deed from which the plaintiff learnt the names and addresses of the partners of the defendant. The plaintiff, thus, wants to implead all the four partners, namely; (a) Smt. Man Mohan Kaur. (b) Miss Harleen Chhabra,...
Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC535Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal the question that arises for decision is whether the appellants manufactured and sold "rapid hardening cement" in the guise of "ordinary portland cement" during the period July 1976 to March 1977 and October 1977 to December 1977.2 The circumstances in which the question arose are that the appellants manufacture cement for which they hold a Central Excise licence. They were clearing what was called ordinary portland cement. (It is their submission that they do not manufacture rapid hardening cement at all and never did so). During the course of scrutiny of certain records pertaining to the appellants the Central Excise Officers came across the test certificates given by the National Test House, Bombay in respect of some of the clearances of cement. The Collector of Central Excise after due process held that the test reports of the National Test House clearly indicated that cement manufactured by the appellants was not ordinary portland cement but rapid hardening ceme...
Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC39
1. The appellants manufacture Tyres, Tubes, Flaps and other rubber products. During the course of manufacture they draw samples of tyres for test within the factory. These samples are drawn under what are called "factory shipping orders". The present dispute is whether such samples of tyres drawn by the appellants are covered by Notification No. 141172. It is the case of the appellants that all samples drawn by them are covered and the Revenue Insists that they are not.2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay in her order held that during the period 26-10-1978 to 31-10-1981 the appellants cleared more than one sample of tyre at a time taking them to 3 different departments of their laboratory for testing purposes and that therefore the exemption availed by them on the quantities of tyres etc. cleared in excess of the quantities specified in the said Notification was irregular. She held that condition (i) to the Notification was not fulfilled rendering the appellants liable...
M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC201
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Notification No.95/79-C.E., dated 1.3.1979 exempted certain finished products as specified in Columns 4 and 5 of the Table below the Notification from so much of the Central Excise duty leviable under First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and the Additional duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 already paid on certain inputs as specified in Columns (2) and (3) of the said Table subject to certain condition, the condition (iii) being as follows :- "(iii) the procedure set out in Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules is followed." The above Notification was amended by Notification No. 58/82-C.E., dated 28.2.1982 by virtue of which three inputs, viz. Synthetic Rubber, Carbon black and Rubber Processing Chemicals falling under Central Excise Tariff Items 16AA, 64 and 65 respectively were added in columns 2 and 3 of the Table, and Tyres, Tubes and Raps falling under Tariff Item 16 were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »