Delhi Court July 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.
G.M.C. Brothers and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC6
1. The above captioned nine appeals pertain to the commodity thin walled bearings and as such are disposed of by a consolidated order.Since the facts In all the nine matters are similar and as such facts In appeal No. CD(SB)/.168/83-B2 of M/s. Sunrise Engineering Works are narrated. M/s. Sunrise Engineering Works had Imported bimetal bearings vide Bill of Entry Cash No. 986, dated 14th February, 1986 Ex. Ernst Schelner. The appellant had claimed reassessment of the goods viz.Bimetal Engine Bearings on the ground that these goods do not qualify to be treated as thin walled bearings according to specification No.4774. The revenue was of the view that the goods imported in the trade parlance were reckoned as thin walled bearings. The appellant had taken the stand that in the trade the goods were known as bimetal bearings and Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff covered only thin walled bearings and ISI Specification No. IS-4774-1968 specifies what are thin walled bearings in India -that...
Seraikella Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC614Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured sheet glass. The point of dispute in these appeals is as to what were the elements of post-manufacturing expenses and what was their cost which was to be excluded from the appellants' sale price for determining the value of their goods for assessment of Central Excise duty under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. For a proper understanding of the facts and issues involved, It is necessary to set out the facts in a chronological order. We do so below :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------DATES EVENTS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------20.6.1979 The appellants submitted their price list No. 38/79 effective from 20.6.1979.7.7.1979 Show Cause Notice issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise why certain elements claimed by the appellants as deduction be not in-16.8.1979 The Superintendent of Central Excise directed the appellants to follow pur...
Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC299
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of C.C.E. Bombay. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 103/61, dated 20.4.1961 as amended. The amendment to this Notification No. 103/61 was made by Notification No. 109/80 by which the benefit of the exemption under this notification was made subject to the procedure under Rule 56A being followed. The procedure under Rule 56A was amended by Notification No. 104/79, dated 3.3.1979 and a proviso was added in Sub-rule (ii) as under: "1 (Provided further that no credit of countervailing duty shall be allowed in respect of any material or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods, if countervailing duty has been paid in respect of such material, or component parts, as fall under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." 2. The appellants enjoyed the benefit of Notification No. 103/61 till 19.06.80 when by virtue of No...
National Engineering Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT719TriDel
1. The dispute in this appeal is on classification of steel balls under the new Central Excise Tariff which came into force from 01-03-1986.The lower authorities have classified the goods under Heading 84.82 of the tariff on the strength of Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the Tariff. The prayer of the appellants is that the goods should be reclassified as parts of cycles under Heading 87.12 read with Heading 87.14 of the Tariff which, read with exemption Notifications No. 62/86-C.E., dated 10-02-1986 and 162/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986, would entitle them to nil rate of duty. On referring to Note 6 of Chapter 84, relied on by the department, we find that it reads as under :- "6. Heading No. 84.82 applies, inter alia, to polished steel balls, the maximum and minimum diameters of which do not differ from the nominal diameter more than 1% or by more than 0.05 mm, whichever is less. Other steel balls are to be classified in Heading No. 73.26." The aforesaid note is a statutory provision and since i...
Precision Fastners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC58
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed 4 classification lists, viz., (i) No. 6 dated 22-6-1978 for stud hub and wheel (front and rear), (ii) No. 10 dated 3-8-1978 for cylinder head bolt and main bearing bolt, (iii) No. 12 dated 13-11-1978 for cylinder head bolt/stud and (iv) No. 13 dated 13-11-1978 for track Bolt, track nut, track shoe bolt and nut. The appellants claimed classification of the goods under tariff item 34-A of the C.E. Tariff read with notification No. 99/71-CE dated 29-5-1971. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise of erstwhile Thane DN. II, vide his order-in-original dated 20-2-1980 held that as the products bore numbers specified against drawings, it could not be said that those had use other than for motor vehicles. He approved the classification of the products under tariff item 34A read with exemption notification No. 99/71-CE for the period prior to 10-6-1979 and under T.I. 68 from 10-5-1979. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II reviewe...
The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Polychem Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC21Tri(Delhi)
1. The Respondents manufactured Vinyl Acetate Monomer. They supplied it to their customers in road takners and drums/barrels Both the road tankers and drums/barrels belonged to the customers and the Respondents incurred no expenditure in respect thereof. The department admits that the containers were durably and were returnable to the customers. At the same time, the department seeks to deny exclusion of the cost of the containers in the assessable value of the goods on the ground that Section 4(4)(d)(i) provides for the cost of durable packing which is returnable by the buyer to the assessee and not vice-versa. This is the only point agitated in the two appeals of the department.2. During the hearing today, the Ld. Representative of the department was fair enough to state that there were a series of High Court judgements and the judgment of this Tribunal which were against the department on the point at issue. As an illustration, he cited paragraph 19 of the larger Bench judgement of...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Modern Food Industries (India)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC541Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue in this matter is the correct classification of "Truity Fruity, a preparation of vegetable and fruits which the respondents claim Is being manufactured by them entirely for further production of end products at their various units. They have stated that the product is not for sale. Mere transfer of the material from their Barari Unit to their other units cannot be regarded as sale, it is stated. Further, it is claimed by the respondents that the containers In which truity fruity is packed are not designed to hold pre-determined quantity of goods.2. On the other hand, the Assistant Collector, who adjudicated the matter found that truity fruity, which were in fact boiled sweets/fruits, used in the manufacture of bread etc. was saleable in the market, although it was not being sold because the respondents were not manufacturing It in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of other consumers. The Assistant Collector has referred in his order to the definition of sale as conta...
Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC476Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue here is correct classification of Guide Blades imported as spare parts for Torque converters The Assistant Collector of Customs held that torque converter is device for transmission of power from the engine to other parts of a machine whether it is a locomotive or an excavator He also held that it works on the same principle of fluid coupling, as a transmission equipment, and the parts of such torque converters other than of motor vehicles classifiable under heading 84.63. CTA.2. Appellants, however, contend that the impugned goods are correctly classifiable only under heading 86.09 read with heading 86/01-03-CTA.3. We have heard Shri Sandeep Narain advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S.R. Nair, SDR, for the department 4. The learned advocate has emphasized that the entire torque converter assembly was specifically deigned by the appellant's collaborathors for use in locomotive. It is also submitted that the parts imported are duly identified in the invoice. Shri Sande...
Vinod Goel Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD428(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 26-2-1988 relating to the assessment year 1986-87. There are diverse grounds taken up in appeal, but the main issue relates to a sum of Rs. 1,59,108 (Rs. 1,00,261 plus Rs. 58,847) added to the total income of the assessee by the Income-tax Officer for the reasons recorded in his impugned order made under Section 143(3) on 15-6-1987. The other grounds relate to part disallowance of telephone expenses for the telephone installed at the residence of the assessee and part disallowance of car expenses along with depreciation. On these grounds, we have heard the parties and proceed to dispose of the same.2. Insofar as the addition of Rs. 1,59,108 on account of sales tax is concerned, it was made by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the assessee had taken,the sales tax collection of the last quarter of the previous year directly to balance sheet. In this regard t...
New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-27-1988
Reported in: 36(1988)DLT223
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This second appeal by the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short 'the NDMC') has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.1973 of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi, whereby he reversed the judgment and degree of the trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. (2) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the Ndmc challenging assessment of the property for the year 1969-70 under the Punjab Municipal Act 1911 (for short 'the Act'), as extended to Delhi. Principal contention which had been raised by the plaintiff was that while arriving at the annual rental value, the Ndmc could not have taken into account the house-tax and water charges payable by the tenants. I, however, need not give the facts in detail as the issue as to whether the suit was barred under S. 86 of the Act which was raised by the Ndmc has since been decided by a Bench decision of this court in the case of the same very parties but for a different assessment year. The case is Sir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »