Delhi Court January 1990 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.
J.K. Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC29
1. The issue involved in these two appeals is the same, although the periods of demands for duty are different. The same have, therefore, been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases, in brief, are that M/s. Godavari Chemicals manufactured Sodium Silicate falling under Item 14BB of the Central Excise Tariff in their factory at 37 - Industrial Extension Area, Gangyal, Jammu Tawi. During the financial year 1982-83, the value of Sodium Silicate cleared by them exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs and hence they were not entitled to any exemption from Central Excise duty on Sodium Silicate during the year 1983-84 in terms of Notification No.83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983, as amended. M/s. Godavari Chemicals ceased to function from May, 1983 and the aforesaid industrial shed was handed over to the appellants by the Estate Manager, J&K S. S. I. Development Corporation on 30-7-1983. The appellants manufactured and cleared from the factory Sodium Silicate duri...
Kanoria WisconsIn Centrifugal Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC472Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd., 4, India Exchange Place (3rd floor), Calcutta had filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur. The said appeal was presented in the Calcutta registry on 12th day of October, 1988. In Column No. 3 of the memo of appeal the date of communication has been mentioned as 14th May 1988. In terms of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the appeal has to be presented within three months from the date of the communication of the order, and as such the last date of the filing of the appeal was 14th day of August, 1988. Thus there is a delay of 58 days. Shri R.K. Virmani, the learned Advocate who has appeared on behalf of the applicant has reiterated the contentions made in the application for condonation of delay. Shri Virmani, the learned Advocate has pleaded that earlier the papers were handled by Shri S.Bhattacharjee, Chief General Manager, who has...
Hoechst India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT607TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay issued on 25-9-1987 by which he had rejected their appeal against the order dated 15-4-1987 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Group 'C', Bombay Custom House by which he had demanded differential duty of Rs. 2,53,683.41 on a consignment of Furfurylamine imported and cleared in August, 1986 at concessional rate under Notification 64/79. One of the conditions in that notification for the exemption therein is that the goods when imported must be used for the manufacture of penultimate drug intermediates or drugs. The appellants executed a bond on 11-8-1986 for the sum of Rs. 2,53,683.41 being the difference between standard and concessional rate of duty undertaking to furnish end-use certificate from Central Excise authorities to the effect that the goods imported had been fully used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs which was to be furnished within 6 months from the date of the ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hans Raj Gupta and Co. (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR72(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties and, in our opinion, the questions of which the petitioner seeks reference are questions of law inasmuch as they involve the interpretation of section 32A, and in the second question, the interpretation of section 40(c) and section 40A(5). 2.We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions of law to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed-company was entitled to investment allowance '(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no disallowance should have been made under section 40A(5)/40(C) ?' 3. No order as to costs. ...
Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Dr. (Kaviraj) Khajan Chand
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: (1990)88CTR(Del)233; [1990]182ITR469(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The question involved in this case pertains to the valuation of a plot of land which was gifted by the respondent to this grandson. The Gift-tax Officer did not accept the contention of the assessed, namely, that the value should be Rs. 15,136, which was the consideration which the assessed had paid for it on January 30, 1976. The contention of the assessed was that, according to the terms of the lease deed, for a period of 10 years this property could not be transferred. The Gift-tax Officer did not accept this contention and valued the said land at Rs. 3,37,792. An appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, while following the decision of this court in CWT v. Smt. Promila Bali : [1983]141ITR942(Delhi) , came to the conclusion that the value of the gift was to be the price for the land. 2. It is contended by Shri Pandey that this conclusion of the Tribunal is uncalled for because, according to section 4 of ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mukul JaIn Medical Institute
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR89(Delhi)
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The respondent is stated to be an institution which was running a homeopathic dispensary on which the expenditure incurred was approximately Rs. 7,000. It had income from other sources including income from sale of shares which was sought to be taxed by the Income-tax Officer. Exemption was claimed by the respondent under section 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act. The exemption was allowed by the Tribunal. The contention of the Revenue was that it is only the income of the hospital or an institution which is derived from its activities as a hospital or institution which is exempted from tax and that income from other sources like the present would be taxable. The question proposed by the Revenue involves the interpretation of section 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act and, in our opinion, a question of law does arise. 2. We, thereforee, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court : 'Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding t...
Shanti Vijay and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-11-1990
Reported in: [1990]183ITR154(Delhi)
Kirpal, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a reference of the following question of law to this court: 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the loans of Rs. 5.15 lakhs and Rs. 3 lakhs are to be treated as unproved loans when the condition precedent, namely, the issue regarding the person to whom the loan transactions belonged has been set aside to be determined?' 2. It appears that the Income-tax Officer, while assessing the petitioner, came to the conclusion that two sums, namely, one of Rs. 3 lakhs and another of Rs. 5.15 lakhs, which were claimed by the petitioner by way of loans, were, in fact, liable to be assessed in the hands of the petitioner. The appeal of the assessed was allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then the second appeal was filed by the income-tax Officer. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said loans were not genuine. Against this order, a reference application was filed under section 2...
Poly Foam Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC87
1. The question that arises for consideration is that appeal is the classification of "DESMODUR T-80 (ISOCYNATES)" under heading 3909.50 of CTA or 2929.10 which has been imported by the appellant. The department has classified it under heading 3909.50 of CTA, while the appellants have sought for classification under 2929.10. Duty at 70% + 40% + 15% C.V.D. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, rejected the appeal of the appellants unsubstantiated. The appellants have submitted that Section note 3 of Section VI of CTA 1975 has not been examined by the authorities below before rejecting their contentions. They have further submitted that item Desmodur T-80 being an organic chemical, isocynate, shall fall in Chapter 29 under Heading 2929.10 of CTA 1975.2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the appellants' letter to decide the case on merit in the light of Trade Notice issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, Circular No. 2/89-CX.3 issued under F.No. 93/22/88-CX.3 dated...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. K.L. Bhatia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: (1990)84CTR(Del)152
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following questions of law to this court : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has misdirected itself and acted against law in reversing its judgment given by it in its order dated June 27, 1985, in ITA No. 917/Delhi/83, when the entire material and evidence from its following observations in part 6 of the said order We have considered the oral submission and perused the entire material on record including the paper book filed by the assessed. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was evidence for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to have come to a view different than that which was taken in order dated June 27, 1986, in ITA No. 917/Delhi/83 and for discarding the view taken in that order 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal has misdirected itself and erred in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Orient Enterprises
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-1990
Reported in: [1990]185ITR156(Delhi)
Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner in this case seeks reference of the following questions of law to this court : '(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition made by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of conflicting statements made by Shri K L Suri, Shri M K Suri, and Shri Sher Singh recorded on March 23, 1979, April 2, 1979, and May 18, 1979, and without considering the directions given by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Income-tax Act (2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the assessed discharged his onus by giving conflicting statements is perverse and erroneous and not rationally possible (3) Whether the statements of Shri M. P. Jain, Shri M. K. Suri and Sher Singh recorded on March 23, 1979, April 2, 1979, and May 18, 1979 are relevant and admissible as evidence in view of their contradictions in their statements and to what extent the said statement...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »