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.
Malti Prasad (Huf) Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1989
Reported in: [1989]30ITD255(Delhi)
ORDERPer Shri M. C. Agarwal, J. M. - These are cross-appeals by the assessed and the revenue respectively arising out of levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1977-78.2. The assessed is a HUF. Its previous year for asst. year 1977-78 ended on 31-10-76. On 20-8-76 a search took place at the premises in which Malti Prasad, his wife Smt. Janki Devi, their unmarried daughters Vibha, Abha and Sudha and their minor son Sudhir alias Munna resided. Malti Prasad happens to be the karta of the present assessed. The search was authorised against a partnership firm M/s Malti Prasad and S/Sh. Malti Prasad, Jagdish Prasad, Vijai Prasad and Ram Prasad. In the portion occupied by Malti Prasad and his cash amounting to Rs. 1,28,085.00 and some gold and silver ornaments were found and were found and were seized. At the time of search Malti Prasad was examined on 20-8-76. He stated that the cash belonged to his wife who after selling some ornaments about 30 years ...
Handtex Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC404Tri(Delhi)
1. The present miscellaneous application emerges from the Tribunal's Order No. 37/88-B2 dated 2nd February, 1988. The appeal was posted for hearing vide notice dated 14th December, 1987 issued on 15th December, 1987 and sent per registered A.D. post. The matter was listed for hearing on 19th January, 1988. Nobody had appeared on behalf of the appellants on the date of hearing and the Tribunal had disposed of the appeal on merits. In the present application, the applicants have made a prayer to rehear the appeal after giving an opportunity of being heard. The miscellaneous application is duly supported with an affidavit sworn before the Oath Commissioner. The matter had come up for hearing last on 7th September, 1988 and the judgment was reserved.Before the order could be issued, a communication dated 23rd September, 1988 was received from the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post NDSW Division, New Delhi -110021. The said communication was received in the Registry on 26th Septem...
Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1989
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT58TriDel
1. C/Misc/161/89-A. - This Misc. application has been filed by the appellants as comments on the cross objection filed by he department in C/Cross/58/89-A. It is seen that this is merely parawise comments on he cross objection. Taking up the cross objection itself we find that this is merely in the lature of parawise comments on the appeal filed by M/s. Rajkumar Knitting Mills (P) Ltd. Therefore, we dismiss the misc.application and the cross objection is mis-conceived.C/3660/88-A. - This appeal is directed against order dated 16-11-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he had enhanced the value of the goods imported by the appellants to a higher amount than what was declared by them in the Bill of Entry filed for the clearances of the goods. The appellants imported 24 sets of second hand waterjet looms and filed Bill of Entry for the same. On examination it was found that the goods were old and used and no re-conditioning was carried out. The order of the...
Adarsh Spinning Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1989
Reported in: (1991)LC249Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellants M/s. Adarsh Spinning Mills have challenged the impugned order-in-original No. 4/CE/84, C.No. V(18-B) Add!. Collr. 15/5/AAR/83/1981 dated 28-2-1984 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh, under Section 35-B of the Central Excises & Salt Act.2. To sum up the facts briefly, the appellants were issued with show cause notice dated 8-2-1983 for contravention under Rules 9(1), 52-A, 53, 173-F, 173-G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in which it was alleged that on 6-11-1982, the Inspector of Central Excise, Range III, Ludhiana visited the factory premises and drew samples from lot of Worsted Woollen yarn containing wool 70%, nylon 14% and viscose 16% falling under Tariff Item 18-B(1), as intimated by the party vide letter dated 2-11-1982. As per blend register, the number of the lot assigned was 15 dated 2-11-1982. The Inspector drew a representative sample in quadruplicate from above-mentioned running lot No. 15 and one ...
Vardhman Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. Aggrieved with demand of duty, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that M/s. Vardhman Steels (P) Limited, Ludhiana, appellants therein, are inter alia engaged in the manufacture of steel bigots. They were availing Proforma Credit facility under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the receipt and utilization of inputs namely Ferro-alloys falling under Tariff Sub-heading No. 7202.20 in their final products namely Steel Ingots falling under Tariff Sub-heading No. 7206.20 upto 12-5-1986.They applied for Modvat Scheme with effect from 13-5-1986. They were neither to maintaining Proforma Credit accounts in form R.G. 23 Part I and II but, were required to maintain accounts of such credits hi form R.G. 23A Part I and R.G. 23A Part II with effect form 13-5-1986 and submit the same with R.T. 12 return for May, 1986 which the appellants failed to do. Further appellants had utilized an amount of Rs. 10,097.33 from their R.G....
Walchandnagar Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-09-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC434Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved with the rejection of the refund application by the authorities below as time barred under Sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. The appellants imported component parts, namely PIV Drivers and Couplings for the manufacture of machine tools. On the presentation of the Bill of Entry it was processed and the assessable value was determined as Rs. 1,71,925/- and accordingly basic custom duty, auxiliary customs duty etc. totalling Rs. 1,08,629.55 was collected. It appears that during the internal audit it was found that excess recovery of Rs. 11,320/- was effected from the appellants. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector Group H, New Customs House, Bombay vide his letter dated 15-6-1982 (said to have been received by the appellants on 16-6-1982) advised the appellants to file refund claim to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section. On receipt of the said advice, the appellants lodged their refun...
Beardsell Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC196
1. The question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the goods which are exempt from duty under a Notification at the time of their manufacture are liable to duty if at the time of their removal the exemption is withdrawn. The facts that gave rise to the question are as follows : "The appellants are manufacturing articles of plastics namely Metoplast Industrial Packing, Metoplast consumer items and flexible polythene sheets. Upto 28-2-1982 the appellants were clearing the above articles without payment of duty * as per Notification No. 68/71 dated 29-5-1971 as amended by Notification Nos. 195/71 and 198/78. On 28-2-1982 Notification No. 52/82 introduced a levy of excise duty of 8% on the above articles. The appellants contended before the Asst. Collector of Central Excise that when duty was first imposed on any article the stock already held by a manufacturer prior to the date of imposition of duty should be fully exempted. The appellants accordingly made a claim of refu...
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bengal Chemicals and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1989
Reported in: (1989)(25)LC235Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the Collector (Appeal)'s Order No.353-CE/KNP/85 dated nil setting aside the order dated 9-1-1981 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, confirming a demand for Rs. 1,09,759.06 against the respondents.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture medicines. During the period from 1-3-1978 to 30-6-1979, they effected clearance of certain medicines at nil rate of duty. The pilfer proof caps ("P.P. Caps", for short) fixed to the containers had on them the legend "Bengal Chemicals" which the Department, construed, rejecting the respondents' contention to the contrary, was a brand name rendering the medicines liable to classification and assessment to duty as "Patent or Proprietary Medicines" under Item No. 14E of the First Schedule ("the CET", for short) to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. According to the Assistant Collector, the respondents had suppressed the fact of registration of the words "Benga...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Punjab Tractors (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC48Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts necessary for the decision in this matter are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Tractors in Mohali, Punjab. They commenced production in 1974-75. The Central Board of Excise and Customs by an order dated 24-11-1975 exempted them on the ground that the tractors would be manufactured entirely from the indigenous components/raw materials. This order did not say that it exempted the product from the payment of duty, but it has been issued under Rule 8(2) of the Central Excise Rules. Its effect is that the Board exempted the product from payment of central excise duty.2. The respondents cleared some tractors availing of this exemption during the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. In 1976 the Central Government issued Notification No. 198/76-C.E., whereby 25% concession was allowed on the production of tractors in excess of base clearances.3. Central Excise Department, while calculating base clearances, which in this case, was the average clearance of three years t...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Subros Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC219Tri(Delhi)
1.The Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, has filed six appeals being aggrieved from a consolidated order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposing of three appeals. The Collector of Central Excise had filed originally one appeal which is being registered with the Registry as appeal No. E/216/88-B. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 2nd February, 1988. Thereafter, five more supplementary appeals were filed with a covering letter which were received in the Registry on 30th March, 1988. In the covering letter the appellant has mentioned the details of the orders against which five supplementary appeals have been filed. The same are reproduced below :- "(1) Order-in-Original C.No.V(17)VC/9019/475/86/2589 dated 3-6-1987 modifying C/L No. 161/R-III/Noida/87 dated nil effective 8-5-1987. (2) Order-in-Original C.No.V(30)171-Misc/Subros/87/4122-26 dated 18-8-1987 confirming the demand of Rs. 94,46,804.51 for the period September, 1986 to May, 1987. (3) Order-...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »