Delhi Court June 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.
S.H. Kelkar and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT421TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 2672/88-BCH passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and issued on 7-7-1988.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported a consignment which comprised, inter alia, of a product called ABBALIDE. The appellants sought clearance of the goods under the provisions of Open General Licence - Appendix 6 (1) of the Import Control Policy - as actual users. The product was classified by the Customs Authority under Chapter 29 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as it stood at the material time. A sample was drawn from the goods for test in the Customs laboratory. The product was reported to a solution of the aromatic chemical 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 Hexahydro 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 hexamethyl cyclopentagamma-2-Benzo Pyran in Diethyl Phthalate. The Customs authorities were of the view that the product was more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Schedule and was also covered by Entry ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Modern Plastic House
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC142Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 28-10-1988. The learned S.D.R. has drawn attention to the brief facts of the case and the grounds of appeal as mentioned in the appeal memo and stated that briefly speaking in this case the goods, namely, nylon yarn was seized under the belief that they were smuggled goods.2. Nylon yarn is a notified item under Section 123 CA, 1962, therefore, the burden of proof was on the respondents which they had not discharged. Hence the Assistant Collector had confiscated the goods and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5000/-. The respondent had appealed to the Collector (Appeals) who noted, "the main contention of the appellant is that imported goods are thread and not yarn as treated by the customs authorities and thread is not a notified item". The learned Collector (Appeals) had accepted this contention and observed that the goods were purchased from Sadar Bazar, Delhi against regular and proper ...
Shyam Dyeing Mills (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT608
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) The challenge, in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the refusal, on the part of respondents 1 and 2. to grant no objection certificate, for the factory of the petitioners, at D-30, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. (2) Briefly, the facts are that petitioner no. 2, one of the Directors of petitioner No. 1 Company, was granted a provisional registration of a Small Scale Industry Unit, vide communication dated September .17, 1983 for manufacture and sale of Alloy Steel Castings (excluding Ingots), by the Directorate of Industries. Thereafter, petitioners started- taking effective steps, in respect of implementation of the proposed Project/Unit, for the aforesaid purpose. In this regard, petitioners approached the Directorate of Industries, for the issue of Essential Certificate which is the pre-requisite, for the issue of Import license, by the Joint Controller of Imports & Exports, for the import of capital ...
Mehta Nettings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC234Tri(Delhi)
1. Question involved in this appeal is the classification of Round Mesh Mosquito Netting Fabrics (RMMNF) under the CET for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty. The department has classified it under Tariff Heading 58.04 whereas the appellants urge Tariff Heading 52.06. Hence this appeal.2. The learned advocate Shri D. Dave has urged that the Tribunal has already decided this question in the matter of Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (Calico Mills for short) vide its order No. 469/89-D dated 20-10-1989. He relies strongly on this decision and further urges that it is binding on the Tribunal in view of para 11 in AIR 1976 SC 1441.2.1. Short ground taken by the department for discarding the submission of the appellants is that the said RMMNF has been manufactured on roller-locking machine and not on loom while Tariff Heading 52.06 specifically speaks of cotton fabric woven on looms other than handlooms. It, therefore, holds that Tariff Heading 58.04 is th...
Kamarhatty Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: (1991)LC232Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20-6-1984 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Factual structure of the case is that the appellants M/s. Kamarhatty Co. Ltd., Kamarhatty, holder of Central Excise Licence are Jute Manufacturers namely Fabrics and bags falling under T.I. 22A(1) and 22A(2) respectively. According to the department the appellants paid duty only on one stage i.e. at the stage of clearance but no duty was paid by them at the intermediate stage i.e. to say on Fabric for manufacture of bags, which according to the department was payable by the appellants as per the Cess orders issued under Rule 3 of Jute Manufactures Cess Rules, 1976 issued under Section 9 of the Industrial (D & R) Act, 1951. Accordingly nine show cause notices for different period ranging from March 1981 to April 1983 were issued to the appellants calling upon them to show cause as to why the total duty amount of Rs. 2,48,300.56 be not demanded. The appellan...
Escorts Jcb Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD336(Delhi)
1. These two cross appeals are directed against the order of CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi. ITA No. 4172 is by the assessee whereas ITA No.4595 is by the revenue. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 1st November, 1977, an Indian company, viz., Escorts Ltd. having its registered office at Mahajan House, E 1 & 2, N.D.S.E. Part II, New Delhi entered into a Development Agreement for jointly developing the product called Wheeled Excavator Loader with the foreign company, viz. J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. having its office at Rocester, England, For the sake of brevity we will hereinafter refer Escorts Ltd. as 'Escorts' and J.C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. as 'JCB'. As per the agreement the parties agreed to establish a joint venture company for the commercial manufacture of a prototype wheeled excavator loader (hereinafter called as prototype) subject to the parties being ultimately satisfied as to its commercial and economic viability. The Escorts and JCB were to bear their own c...
Arun Shourie Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD41a(Delhi)
1. Through this application, the assessee requests that we should draw up the statement of the facts of the case and refer for the valued opinion of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the following 13 questions: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest payment of Rs. 7,785 on the borrowing from the bank was deductible from the interest received by the applicant? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in arriving at a conclusion different from the one recorded by the Tribunal in respect of the immediately preceding year on exactly the same facts (and which conclusion in law in the earlier year had been accepted by the Department)? 3. Was it not imperative for the Tribunal in law and as per the practice obtaining, to refer the matter to a Special Bench in case it wanted to review another order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal or review the same in the case of the same assessee, though it was for a different year but there was no chan...
Campa Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD241(Delhi)
1. This is an assessee's second appeal arising out of its assessment for assessment year 1981-82. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee Shri C.S. Agarwal, Advocate assisted by Shri Anil Sharma, Advocate and Shri D.R. Bahl, Chartered Accountant and the learned standing counsel Shri Rajendra for the Revenue assisted by Shri D.C.Taneja, Advocate.2. The assessee is a manufacturer of soft drink concentrates of the drinks Campa Cola, Campa Orange and Campa Lemon. The concentrate is sold by the assessee to 28 franchise holders who convert the concentrate into liquid drinks for public consumption and sell the soft drinks in the market. Out of the 28 Franchise holders (hereinafter called bottlers) six private limited companies are controlled by the same Directors and have been described by the authorities below, without controversion by the assessee, as the sister concerns of the assessee. One of them is M/s Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Pvt. Ltd. The relationship of the assessee with t...
Indian Express (Madurai) Private Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)(50)ELT453TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of their refund claim, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants M/s. Indian Express (Madurai) Private Ltd., Madras imported Goss Headliner Press equipment and cleared the goods through the Cochine Customs House on payment of duty.Subsequently the appellants preferred a claim for refund of customs duty paid by them on the following grounds that - (1) The spare parts for Goss headliner machine have been assessed to duty classifying them under Heading 84.62(2) CTA. According to Section XVI note 2 (b) these are parts of machine falling under Heading 84.35 CTA. (2) The casting machine is a stereo casting machine and is correctly classifiable under Heading 84.35 as it is a machinery for use ancillary to printing and not under Heading 84.34 CTA. (3) Mat dryer is classifiable under Heading 84.35 instead of 84.17(1) CTA, as specially made for drying stereo flongs. (4) Mat Trimmer has been assessed under Headi...
Modern Tyre Moulds (India) (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-01-1990
Reported in: (1990)34ITD232(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 is directed against the order dated 13-3-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi. That the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining disallowance of deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act.3. Brief facts of the case are these: The assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. company. Its accounting year relevant for assessment year 1982-83 ended on 30-6-1981. The assessee derives income from the business of manufacture and sale of tyre retreading plants. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80-I of the Income-tax Act by way of a letter dated 7-2-1985 addressed to the assessing officer. The Income-tax Officer, however, did not deal with the claim of the assessee while completing the assessment on 11-2-1985. The application under Section 154 filed by the assessee was also rejected by the Income-tax Officer vide his order dated 24-9-1985. The assessee pre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›