Delhi Court June 1989 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.
Ludhiana Food Products Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC402Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh in Order-in-Original dated 7-2-1986 demanding duty of Rs. 1,00,257/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.2. The appellants M/s. Ludhiana Food Products is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of biscuits falling under erstwhile tariff Item 1 C. During the year 1983-84, the appellants were availing the small scale exemption from the whole of duty of excise on their biscuits upto the value limit of first clearance of Rs. 7.5 lakhs during a financial year as provided under Notification No. 80/80-CE dated 19-6-1980.3. On 8-3-1984, the Central Excise Preventive officers of Chandigarh intercepted at Ludhiana one Tempo carrying different varieties of biscuits valued at Rs. 6,321.26 P. from the appellants factory.Investigations were made, books seized and statements recorded and show cause notice dated 4-9-1984 issued under Rule 9(2) and under Rules 173Q and 226. After the proce...
Decorative Laminates (India) (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT506TriDel
1. Appellants are manufacturing Commercial plywood which is coated with duty paid Phenol Formaldehyde Resin and also paper laminated plywood and block board. The first product has been classified by the lower authority under Central Excise Tariff Item 4408.90 and the second and the third products have been classified under Tariff Item 4408.30.2. Appellants' case is that these goods are non-excisable. As regards commercial plywood coated with duty paid phenol formaldehyde resin, it is contended by the appellants that the processing undertaken of application of phenol formaldehyde resin and then pressing the product at 100 C does not amount to manufacture as the resultant products remains plywood which falls under the same tariff heading as the commercial plywood prior to the process, that is to say Tariff Item 4408.90.3. Insofar as paper faced laminated plywood and block board are concerned, it is submitted that these products are not excisable as they are manufactured out of duty paid...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Perfect Electric Corporation (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT653TriDel
1. This appeal has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna being aggrieved by the order dated 16-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals); Calcutta. By this order the Collector (Appeals) turned down the application by the department before him to review the approval of classification list accorded by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur in regard to certain switches manufactured by the respondents herein. The respondents manufacture parts and accessories of motor vehicles. They produce, inter alia, the following 13 items :- Prior to 18-6-1977 these goods were classified under Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff which was under the description "parts and accessories, not elsewhere specified of Motor Vehicles and tractors including Trailors". By the Finance Bill, 1977 Tariff Item 61 CET was introduced with the following description "Electric Lighting Fittings, namely, Switches, Plugs and Sockets, all kinds; chokes and starters for...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Electrical Switchgears (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1989
Reported in: (1990)(27)LC398Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved is common to all the appeals, and therefore, they are disposed off by a common order.2. The department has come in appeal against various orders of the appellate authority holding that the respondents are entitled to the deemed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs such as HR/CR Sheets, M.S. Bars, Flat & Round etc. in terms of deeming declaration dated 7th April, 1986 issued by the Government of India under Rule 57-G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The contention of the department is that under the declaration dated 7th April, 1986 no Modvat credit is permissible if inputs are clearly recognisable as being non-duty paid or charged to nil rate of duty.Since all the inputs involved are wholly exempt from duty under notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1st August, 1983 they are clearly recognisable as non-duty paid and therefore, no Modvat credit is permissible.4. The respondents contended that the issue is covered by the order of this Tribunal in Collector...
Ram Chandra Daya Shankar Rastogi Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT604TriDel
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of confiscation of gold under Section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the learned Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. This appeal is preferred under Section 82 of the Act.2. The facts of the case are that on 7-5-1987, a Divisional Preventive party of Central Excise, Sitapur visited the business premises of M/s.Ram Chandra Daya Shankar Rastogi, Nawabganj, Sandi, Hardoi and conducted the search of the aforesaid business premises on the authority of search warrant in presence of two independent witnesses.As a result, new gold ornaments weighing 699.500 gms valued at Rs. 1,93,200/- were recovered from a box from the said business premises.The search was attended by the appellant. The statement of the appellant was recorded. A panchnama was prepared and the gold was seized. A summons dated 11-5-1987 was issued and in response, the appellant and his son appeared before the Superinte...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Jhalani and Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD55(Delhi)
1. In this appeal directed against the order dated 7-10-1985 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-V New Delhi the ground raised is as under : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed Under Section 273 amounting to Rs. 2,92,959.2. The assessee is a registered partnership firm regularly assessed to tax. The relevant facts with regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, material gathered by the assessing officer for the purpose of levy of penalty and quantum thereof can better be appreciated on reading the whole penalty order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and, therefore, the same is reproduced :- M/s. Jhallani and Co. filed an estimate in form No. 29 for assessment year 1983-84 on 10-6-1982, estimating the income at Rs. 10,000 and tax payable according to this income at Nil. The assessee filed the return on 18-4-1984 showing total income of Rs. 12,70,740. The assessme...
Dr. M.G.K. Menon Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD86(Delhi)
1. The sum and substance of all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal is to dispute the taxability of sum of/US $ 5,000, received by the assessee-appellant from the organisers of the XXXVth JCI World Congress, 1980, for delivering the keynote address at the Seminar of- the said JCI World Congress held at Osaka, Japan, on the llth November, 1980, on the theme "Energy: Planning for the Future", and participating in the Subsequent panel discussions of the Seminar.2. The assessment year involved is 1981-82 for .which the relevant previous year ended on 31-3-1981. The assessee derives income from salary, house property, dividends, interest etc. In part III of the return of his income the assessee had shown a sum of Rs. 41,800 equivalent to.US $ 5,000 and claimed the same as exempt from income-tax for delivering the key-note address on "Energy: Planning for the Future" and participating in the panel discussion. The assessee had also claimed a sum of Rs. 5,000 as exempt in very s...
Subhash Chopra and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT297
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The petitioners Subhash Chopra and SunilChopra have filed this petition for obtaining probate of Will executed by their father Shri Avinash Chopra. being Will dated 23.5.1985. The Will dated23.5.1985 has been proved by the attesting witnesses, namely Kalyan SinghP.W. 2, and Ashok Chopra, Public Witness 3. Both the attesting witnesses have deposed about signing of the Will by the testator in their presence, and in the presence of the attesting witnesses as also in the presence of Dr. Harbans Lal.The witnesses have deposed that the testator was in sound disposing mind.(2) In view of the testimony of attesting witnesses, the Will Ex. P. 2has been proved.(3) After filing of the probate petition, citations were published in 'The Hindustan Times', and notices were issued to the State through counsel for the State. Notices were also issued to the legal represented of the deceased namely, Smt. Sudha Chopra-widow; Smt. Renu Kapur-daughter; and Smt.Ayesha Davar-daughter.No...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. Since the issue involved in the above two appeals was common, they were taken up together for consideration. On the date of hearing i.e.14th June, 1989, nobody was present for the Respondents. However, vide their telegram dated 13th June, 1989, they had requested for decision on merits. Therefore, we poceeded to hear Smt. Vijay Zutshi, learned SDR for the Appellant-Collector. After hearing the learned SDR and on going through the records of the case, it was held by us that the appeals should be dismissed and it was so announced in the Court. Now, we proceed to record hereunder the detailed reasons for our holding so :- 2. The question involved in both the appeals is whether 'garnetting' of waste would amount to a process of 'manufacture'. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and held that 'garnetting' is not manufacture as contemplated by Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and, therefore, it was held that the g...
Appollo Tyres Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC34Tri(Delhi)
1. The point involved in these two appeals for decision is whether insoluble sulphur' (oil content 20%) is classifiable under heading 25.01/32(10) CTA as claimed by the appellants or under heading 38.01/19(7) CTA as decided by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Collector (Appeals).2. Shri Haksar, the learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that this very question has been examined by the Tribunal and it was decided that insoluble sulphur could be more appropriately classifiable under heading 25.01/32(10) in preference to heading 38. He has produced a copy of the order of the Tribunal (Collector of Customs, Bombay v. CEAT Tyres (I) Ltd. And J.K. Industries - Order Nos. 961-976/87-C, dated 18-12-1987 printed in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 333 (Tribunal). He submitted that this decision of this Tribunal, not having been set aside by the Supreme Court, may be followed.3. Shri Sunder Rajan, learned Departmental Representative accepted that the Tribunal's earlier order cited by the learn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »