Delhi Court September 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.
Garuda Pattabhiramyya and Co. Vs. Addl. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT574TriDel
1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order No. IGM No. 407/83 MCD dated 15/19-12-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Customs House, Visakhapatnam.2. The appellants M/s. Bhanojirow, Garuda Pattabhiramayya & Company being steamer Agents on behalf of their Principal M/s. Shipping Corporation of India, carried the goods in their vessel m.v. "Vishva Nayak". The SAIL, Bhillai as consignee imported from USSR 38 packages of screws in this m.v. Vishva Nayak. The ship arrived at Visakhapatnam Port on 3-1-1984, and discharged cargo. In view of the discrepancy between the tally sheet and out-turn report and based on out-turn report of Visakhapatnam port authorities, the Additional Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter has imposed penalty of Rs. 13,51,197 (Rupees thirteen lakhs fifty one thousand one hundred and ninety seven only) on the appellants being Steamer Agents under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 for not accounted the shortlanding of 14 unpacked s...
A.V. Bhanojirow, Garuda Vs. Additionalcollector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC439
1. This appeal arises and directed against the Order No. IGM No. 407/83 MCD dated 15/19.12.88 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Customs House, Vishakhapatnam.2. The appellants M/s. Bhanojirow, Garuda Pattabhiramayya & Company being steamer Agents on behalf of their principal, M/s. Shipping Corporation of India, carried the goods in their vessel M.V. "Vishva Nayak". The SAIL, Bhilai as consignee imported for USSR 38 packages of screws in this M.V. Vishva Nayak. The ship arrived at Vishakhapatnam Port on 3.1.84, and discharged cargo. In view of the discrepancy between the tally sheet and out turn report and based on out-turn report of Vishakhapatnam port authorities, the Additional Collector of Customs who adjudicated the matter has imposed penalty of Rs. 13,51,197 (Rupees thirteen lakhs fifty one thousand one hundred and ninety seven only) on the appellants being Steamer Agents under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962 for not accounted, the shortlanding of 14 unpacked sc...
Texport Fashions Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC208Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard Sh. Gujral, the learned advocate and Shri Sharma, learned SDR on the stay application which seeks the waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay in respect of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the applicants.2. The facts of this matter are that the applicants imported what they claim to be PVC leather belts. The customs examination of the consignment, as recorded on the bill of entry found the imported goods to be PVC leather belts. In the invoices also it was described as the same. The Additional Collector, however, apparently on the basis of his own visual examination and of market enquiry, details of which were not communicated to the applicants, decided that the imported goods were leather belts. Besides ordering, as a consequence, confiscation of the goods, the Additional Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.3. Shri Gujral submitted that prima-fade all the facts are in favour of the applicants and they have an excellent case.4. Shri Sharma opposed the stay and su...
Collector of Customs Vs. Brooke Bond India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC79
1. Collector of Customs, Calcutta has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order No. 111-A of 1982 dated 27th February, 1982 passed by the Central Board of of Excise and Customs, New Delhi.2. Shri C.V. Durghayya, the learned Junior Departmental Representative, has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Sharad Seth, Manager (Taxation) with Shri S.Moitra, Commercial Manager has appeared on behalf of the respondent.3. At the outset of the hearing, Shri Seth, Manager (Taxation) of the respondent-company pointed out that the appeal before the Tribunal is filed by the Collector Customs, Calcutta against the Board's order and the Collector cannot be deemed as an aggrieved person in view of the provisions of Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. To this Shri C.V.Durghayya fairly stated that in view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, the Collector is not an agrieved person, but he leavaes it to the Bench.4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and cir...
income-tax Officer Vs. D.R. Sehgal
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD198(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue arising out of the assessee's assessment for assessment year 1980-81.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee and have perused the material placed before us.3. The only point arising in this appeal is whether the profit earned by the assessee on the sale of a plot of land at Chandigarh is a long-term capital gain, as alleged by the assessee, or a short-term capital gain, as assessed by the ITO.4. The facts are that the assessee was allotted a plot of land bearing No. 129 by the Urban Estate Officer, Punjab at Chandigarh on 28-4-1972.Possession of the said plot was delivered to the assessee on 24-7-73.The total price that the assessee was to pay for this plot measuring 500 sq. yd. was Rs. 13,500 and 15% thereof was to be paid within 30 days of the date of allotment. The allotment letter stated that after 25% of the amount had been paid, the assessee would have to execute a deed of conveyance in...
Salwan Construction Co. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-1989
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT374
S.N. Sapra, J.(1) Salwan Construction Company, the present petitioner, was awarded by respondent no. 1, the work for construction of M.S.O. building, at plot No. 35, Block D and D-1, at the estimated cost of Rs. 41,17,513.00 , on the terms and conditions, as incorporated in the agreement No. 16/EE/CD-II/69-70. (2) Under the agreement, the work was to commence on January 21, 1970, and was to be completed within a period of 18 months, i.e. on or before July 20, 1970. It is not disputed that the work was completed on March 28,1974. (3) Various disputes arose between the parties, under the agreement, which provided for settlement by arbitration, under clause 25. Vide his letter dated December 24,1984, Chief Engineer, (CZ) C.P.W.D., New Delhi, appointed Shri Sarvesh Chandra, as the sole arbitrator, to decide the disputes between the parties, as were referred to him. The arbitrator entered upon reference, on January 21, 1984. (4) Petitioner and Union of India filed claims and counter claims ...
Sippy Pramod Steel Alloys Pvt. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC393Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 22-3-1989 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madras by which he had ordered confiscation of 54.67 M.T. of Copper Dross under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 giving the option to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also ordered enhancement of assessable value to 446.5 per M.T. FOB as against the declared value of US $ 550 per M.T. CIF. The Additional Collector further imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants imported the above consignment of copper Ash/Dross for which they filed a Bill of Entry dated 30-12-1988. The value of the consignment was declared at Rs. 4,36,981/- based on the Invoice value in US $ under Invoice No. 6288 dated 2-11-1988 raised by M/s. Sriji Enterprises, USA. The unit price was declared at US $ 550 M.T. CIF as per Invoice. On import the goods were examined and sample therefr...
Collector of Customs Vs. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, has filed three applications on form CA 5 in terms of provisions of Section 129-D(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, in pursuance of order No. 26-R/85 dated 7th June, 1985 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. The said order dated 7th June, 1985 was received by the present appellant, viz.Collector of Customs, Bombay, on 24th July, 1985 and the Collector of Customs, Bombay, had presented these appeals in the Registry on the 8th day of October, 1985. In terms of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 129-D, the same are being treated as appeals and are registered with the Registry as appeal Nos. C/1925/85-A, C/1926/85-A and C/1927/85-A.2. M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. have also filed the above captioned appeals being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. M/s. Skefko India Bearing Co. Ltd. had requested that the issue involved in the four appeals filed by them is similar to the review applica...
inspecting Assistant Vs. Reinz Dichtungs Gmbh
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD67(Delhi)
1. As these Departmental appeals filed for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1980-81 give rise to common issues, they were heard together and for the sake of convenience, are being disposed of by this common order.2. These appeals came up for hearing before Bench '"C". The learned Members noted that the question involved was whether royalty income was assessable on cash basis as claimed by the assessee or on Mercantile basis as assessed by the assessing officer. The Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 16-11-1978 in I.T.A. Nos. 590 and 591 (Del.)/1977-78 in the assessee's case for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 restored the appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after looking into the balance-sheet of the assessee and after allowing the Income-tax Officer to examine the books of account produced before him. After remand of the case, the C.I.T.(Appeals) held that the assessments for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 sh...
Somany Pilkingston'S Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-04-1989
Reported in: (1989)31ITD287(Delhi)
1. This is a misc. application filed by the assesses on 14-10-1988 bringing to the notice of the Tribunal that the allowance of an earlier misc. application filed by the I.T.O. Co. Cir., Rohtak on 28-1-1981, in his favour was out of time and was barred by limitation, was therefore wrong and should be cancelled.2. The assessee claimed, inter alia, relief Under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, stating that in computing the capital employed for the purpose of the business, the borrowed capital also should be included as capital. The Tribunal by its order in I.T.A. Nos. 361 to 364/1978-79 dated 27-8-1980 allowed the assessee's claim, following the law as then decided, understood and applied. Subsequently by Finance Act No. 2 of 1980, Section 80J was amended with retrospective effect, providing that in computing the capital employed for the purpose of Section 80J, the borrowed capital should be excluded. This amendment was made with retrospective effect which covered the years under appe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »