Delhi Court January 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 1 of about 118 results (0.021 seconds)Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC186Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard all these appeals together as all of them involve common issues relating to one particular aspect of valuation, viz., whether the authorities were correct in increasing the assessable value of the goods. In some of the appeals the Assistant Collectors passed orders whereas in one Appeal (No. ED/SB/396/83-A) the Collector passed the orders.2. The facts relevant for a decision in these appeals are that the appellants, a statutory body responsible for generation, transmission and distribution of electricity within the State of Andhra Pradesh, require poles which are, in the words of the appellants (Statement of facts, Appeal No. E/483/86-A) "made by the Board at its Units through Contractors on contract basis"). These poles are used by the Board for their consumption for various trnasmission and distribution schemes.The appellants do not sell the poles and, therefore, wholesale price is not available. The value hss, therefore, to be arrived at with the help of the Valuation R...
Tag this Judgment!Durrung Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT544TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original No.7-Addl. Collr./1988 dated 31-5-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut (U.P.).2. The point to be considered in the present case is whether the appellants are entitled to deemed MOD VAT credit in respect of inputs, such as, waste iron and steel scraps in terms of Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) F. No. R.22/5/86-TRU, dated 7-4-1986 issued by the Government of India under Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order disallowing the credit of Rs. 1,78,729.50 Paise taken during the month of July, 1986.Further he raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 88,915.05 Paise on account of clearance of 282.27 MT of Steel Ingots cleared by the appellants during the month of July, 1986 against the debit entries made by the appellants in their Modvat Credit Account. Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also imposed on the appellants for irr...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmarth Trust Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)37ITD86(Delhi)
1. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Assessing Officer. All these appeals involve a common point. Except I.T.A. No. 834 (Asr.) of 1989 relating to the assessment year 1984-85, which arose out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263, all the other appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Commissioner (A) under Section 250(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For the assessment year 1984-85 there are two appeals, one filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) under Section 250(4) which is a regular assessment and the other against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both the appeals involve the same point. For that reason all the appeals are consolidated for disposal by a common order.2. The common issue in all these appeals is, whether the income derived by the assessee trust could be regarded as agricultural income or could be regarded as income...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Tractors Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)37ITD13(Delhi)
1. These two cross appeals - one by the assessee and one by the revenue - arc disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. We have heard Shri Pradeep Dinodia, learned counsel for the assessee and Shri Amitabh Kumar, the learned Senior Departmental Representative.2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of Ford-3600 tractors in collaboration with Ford Motor Company, USA.During the calendar year which is the previous year for assessment year 1981-82, assessee imported certain articles and claimed exemption/confessional levy under the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Assessment of customs duty was made at the time of clearance of bill of entry and the assessed amount was paid by the assessee accordingly. On some of the items exemption claimed by the assessee was allowed by the authorities. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued notices under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 known as 'Less Charge Demand Noti...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Bihari Kulshrestra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD563(Delhi)
1. These are three appeals by the assessee against three identical ord6rs dated 11-2-1988 passed by the CIT, Bhopal under Section 285A(2) levying penalties amounting to Rs. 3,000, Rs. 2,500 and Rs. 600 respectively for assessment years 1982-83,1983-84 & 1984-85.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before me. It appears that the assessee, a partnership firm, was awarded certain contracts, (0 by the Executive Engineer, Mohini Sagar Dam Division, Shivpuri for the construction of 'G' & 'H' type quarters; (ii) Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Division, Datia for the construction of 'G' type quarters; (iii) Executive Engineer, Mohini Sagar Dam Division, Shivpuri for construction of G & H Type quarters Mohini Sagar and by the Executive Engineer, Rajghat Canal Civ. No. 3 for construction of retype quarters. The firm was ultimately assessed to tax by the ITO, Shivpuri, who reported to ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sant Singh Chawla
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT534
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The short question involved is whether the rate of land should be Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard as held by the A.D.J. or not. (3) In New Rajinder Nagar the Respondent had purchased the land in 1952 at Rs 145.00 per sq. yard. The construction of the house commenced in the year 1965. The question which arose was as to what should the price of the land be in 1965. The Assessing Officer has taken the land price at Rs. 200.00 per sq. yard. The Addl. District Judge in appeal, has set aside the order and has remanded the case to the assessing authority with a direction that the land rate should be taken at Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard. This finding of fact has been arrived at on the basis of Cpwd rates which was stated to be rupees 70.00 in that year Mr. Chandhiok further states that there were other orders of the assessing authority where this land rate of Rs. 70.00 has been applied and accepted. We, however, find that in the impugned order of the Addl. District Judge the...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Neena Goel and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: II(1991)ACC23; 1992ACJ1137; 44(1991)DLT259
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) The only ground of challenge, raised in this appeal, filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., appellant herein, under Section 110-D(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is that the insurance policy, in favor of the insured/owner, bad lapsed, because, the offending vehicle, had already been sold by the owner to athird person, prior to the date of accident, and, as such the third party liability of the Insurance Company ended. (2) Notice was issued to respondents to show cause, as to why the appeal be not admitted. Respondents I to 9 have filed answer to show cause. The appeal is at the stage of admission. (3) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are : on September 10, 1971 at about 5.30 P.M., Shri Bishan Lal Goel, now deceased, was going on his motor cycle, bearing No. Dho 2745, from Delhi to Ghaziabad on G.T. Road. A car bearing no. Upd 8851, which was driven rashly, recklessly and negligently by the driver, took a sudden turn for going towards petrol pump, and in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT207TriDel
1. The appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in AMP-399/PN-169/88, dated 13-09-1988. The same is disposed of by a common order by this Tribunal. The issue relates to classification of Base Frame/Base Plate and of Drive Set comprising either Flywheel, Motor Pulley, V-Belt or direct coupling.The appellants submit that all the said parts manufactured by them are classifiable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 29A(3).2. Tracing the facts leading to the filing of this appeal chronologically. The appellants have stated that they were paying duty under Item 68 upto December 1981 under a mistake of law. On being made aware that the correct classification should be under Item 29A(3), they filed a revised classification list on 12-10-1981, in respect of the parts classifying them under Item 29A(3) and claimed exemption from duty under Notification 80/62, dated 24-4-1962 and as the classification list was not approved by the Assistant Collector, the...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Organics (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT87TriDel
1. Being aggrieved with the Adjudication Order No. 17/90 dated 30-5-1990, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, M/s. Veena Organics (P) Ltd. have filed this appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of 'Paracetamol' classifiable under Heading 29.42, sub-heading 2942.00 ("other organic compounds") of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. By Notification No. 31/88-C.E., dated 1-3-1988 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government exempted "Bulk drugs (including salts, esters and derivatives, if any) specified under the First Schedule to the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1987, as amended from time to time" from payment of the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon and "other bulk drugs" from excise duty leviable thereon in excess of 5% ad valorem. (The said Order is hereinafter referred to as the 'DPCO'). Paracetamol is admittedly a bulk drug and figured in the First Schedule t...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Union Carbide (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC52
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein applied in 1967 for L-6 licence for receiving the Toluol falling under Tariff Heading 6 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item under Chapter X Procedure in terms of Notification No. 276/67 dated 21-12-1967 (as amended). This Toluol was used by them for making C.P. 3 coating used in the manufacture of layer flat cells.2. It is not disputed that in the year 1967-68 the question was raised as to the precise use of Toluol brought by the respondents under Chapter X. The then Deputy Chief Chemist examined the product and reported 'C.P. 3 coating is not similar to that of a normal paint or varnish sold in the market nor its function is that of paint and varnish, hence it cannot be identified as paint or varnish'. The question about the character of C.P. coating manufactured by the respondents out of Toluol was again raised in 1977. Test report of the then Deputy Chief Chemist dated 14-10-1980 was that 'thus from the mode of manu...
Tag this Judgment!