Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)26ITD143a(Delhi)
1. The appellant assessee by the presebnt appeal contests the correctness of order dated 1-7-1986 of the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax, New Delhi, for the assessment year 1979-80. Ground No. 1 is to the effect that the learned first appellate authority erred in not accepting the assessee's contention that the value of the gift made of rights as sub-lessee of a residential plot of land should be taken at Rs. 22,625, being the amount of contributions paid by the assessee to the co-operative society for acquisition of the residential plot of land, i.e., the subject matter of gift. Another ground is that the value @ Rs. 600 per sq. yd. confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Gift-tax (Appeals) was excessive.2. Assessee by status is an individual and the accounting period was the year ending 31-3-1979. A return was filed on 7-12-1979 declaring value of taxable gift at Rs. 17,625. It was explained before the learned Gift-tax Officer that the assessee had gifted to his son, Shri Rajesh S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)28ITD231(Delhi)
Where enquiry regarding facts was properly made by assessing officer and observations made by Commissioner were mere conjectures, order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.The assessing officer, in fact, made enquiries on various important facts of the assessment and the assessment orders show that for the assessment year 1983-84 he invoked the provisions of section 40A(5) and for the assessment year 1984-85 he added Rs. 85,221 under section 40A(5) as against Rs. 42,115 worked out by the assessee. In doing so, he considered perquisites on account of accommodation, furniture, medical reimbursement and electricity used, etc. On this ground the Commissioner could not have held that the order made by the assessing officer was erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The assessing officer made reasonable detailed enquiries and after processing the material utilised the same for completion of the assessments and, therefore, the observations of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(19)ECC209
1. The dispute in this appeal is on char-geability of Central Excise duty on specialised material handling equipment installed on motor vehicles. The period of controversy is from 1-8-1979 to 27-2-1986.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in mounting/fixing/fitting the specialised equipment on duty-paid chassis exceeding 2500 c.c. engine capacity and converting such chassis into Hi-lift commissary van, Baggage Conveyor, Passenger steps, Tow Tug, Pilot Dollies, Water and Locklets, Aerial Tower Wagon, Truck Dumping Platform, Articulated Mobile Crane. These specialised vehicles are a common sight at the air-ports, ports, construction sites etc. The impugned order as well as the learned representative of the department accept the position that by virtue of the special definition of "motor vehicles" in Item 34 of the Central Excise Tariff, the whole thing is a motor vehicle and also that because of the express provision made in Explanation II below that item,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(37)ELT236TriDel
1. We heard these three appeals together as they involve common questions and proceed to dispose of them by this common order.2. The dispute in all three appeals relates to the valuation of grapes imported by the appellants through the customs point at Attari Road.The appellants declared the value of the grapes as 7 US $ per crate whereas the customs assessed these grapes on a value of 8 US $ per crate. The appellants requested the Assistant Collector for adjudication of the matter without issue of a show cause notice and explained to him pleading against the increase in value. After the Assistant Collector passed the orders, they paid the duty and appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who rejected the appeals. Hence these present appeals.3. Shri J.S. Agarwal, the Ld. Advocate, for the appellants recalling the facts of the matter submitted that according to the Assistant Collector the grapes of the same kind and quality were imported at the rate of 8 US $ per crate. According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)ECC233
1. Since a common question is involved in all the three appeals, a common order is being passed.2. Short question involved in these appeals is whether the MODVAT credit taken by the respondents herein in terms of Government of India's order F.No. B-22/5/86-TRU, dt. 7.4.1986 on steel sheets purchased from the open market from dealers of iron and steel products is permissible or not. The department contends, as a common ground of appeal, that the said deemed credit taken by the respondents herein is not admissible because the M.S. sheets are wholly exempted from duty under Notification 208/83, dated 1.8.1983 (as amended) and therefore, such M.S. sheets on which deemed credit has been taken by the respondents are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and hence in terms of proviso (ii) to para 2 of Government of India's aforesaid order dated 7.4.1986 would apply making the credit Inadmissible.The respondent company, on the other hand, contends inter alia, that the Notification 208/83, dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(38)ELT471TriDel
1. These three appeals involve common facts and issues and arise out of a common order-in-original passed by the Collector. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and this combined order will dispose of all of them.2. Both sides argued their respective cases with the help of M/s. Globe Engineering Works' appeal file. They confirmed that material facts and issues in the other two appeals were identical, minor differences in dates etc. being immaterial. Accordingly, in this order we have also largely relied on the appeal file and the paper-book of M/s. Globe Engineering Works.3. At the out-set, the appellants dropped their plea of violation of principles of natural justice by the adjudicating Collector saying that their imported consignment had been under detention for the last 4 years and 6 months and they did not want a remand of the matter to the Collector for re-adjudlcatlon.4. We have heard both sides at length arid have carefully considered their submissions and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(22)LC563Tri(Delhi)
1. These four appeals were heard together as they involve common questions and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported goods described as "Hakko Brand Scalp Vein Sets, Sterile Intravenous Cannulae and Tubing for long term use" (description as contained in Orderin-Original reproduced) Clearance of the goods was sought under OGL under the import policy for AM 85 and the benefit of Notification 208/81 was also sought for them. Denying the same, the customs issued show cause notices to the appellants threatening confiscation of the goods and denial of the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22.9.1981. Finally the Collector ordered confiscation of the goods at the same time allowing redemption on payment of fines and also denied the benefit of notification to the imported goods. Hence this appeal.3. Sh. Sogani, the Ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that the issue common to all these appeals has been dealt with by the Tribunal and is squarel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(42)ELT154TriDel
1. On hearing both sides, we observe that the only objection of the department to giving the benefit of exemption notification No.201/79-C.E., dated 4.6.1979 is that for about a period of 3 months the appellants had not given intimation to the Central Excise Officer of receipt of duty paid slag as per clause 5.1 of APPENDIX to the aforesaid notification. The appellants were to give an intimation to the Central Excise Officer within 24 hours on receipt of a consignment of duty paid slag. The appellants accept this omission on their part.But they plead that as soon as they were guided about this requirement, they started complying with it. They submitted to the department intimations for the earlier 3 months period also. These intimations were even now capable of verification with the duty paying documents which were available with the appellants. Their plea is that since they had complied with the substantive conditions of the notification, they should not be denied the benefit of cred...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(37)ELT257TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 728-CE/DLH/84 dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of P and P medicines, falling under Item No.14E of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. This was one of the items covered by Central Excise Notification No. 80/80, as In force at the material time. By this notification, P and P medicines, among other items, were exempted from the whole of the duty leviable thereon on the first clearances during a financial year aggregating to a value of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. The next Rs. 7.5 lakhs of the goods were exempted to the extent of 25% of the duty leviable. The exemption was subject to several conditions. The appellants did not, however, claim duty exemption under this notification during the relevant time (1981-82) but cleared the goods on payment of the full duty leviable. Later on, they filed two claims for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)(18)LC243Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant herein is running a videotorium in his home town. On 21.7.1986 Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the residential as well as the business premises i.e. videotorium and recovered certain imported goods. After due adjudication the following goods have been confiscated by the adjudicating authority under Section 111(P):- (1) 2 VCRs - one VCR recovered at videotorium and other one at his residential premises. However, an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 15.000/- has been given by the adjudicating authority. (2) Camera (Olympic) - recovered from the residential premises alongwith the flash has been confiscated absolutely.Apart from the confiscation of the aforesaid goods a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- has also been imposed, inter alia, on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.In coming to a finding of confiscation of the VCRs, the learned adjudicating authority has held that the appellant herein at the time of seizure no doubt stated that...
Tag this Judgment!