Delhi Court March 1991 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.
M.J. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT355TriDel
1. This is, in part, a chronicle about a determined Revenue Officer taking coercive steps to recover what he perceived as Revenue's rightful dues without pausing to consider whether the due process of law had been observed and the principles of natural justice complied with.(At this stage we may state that Shri Jayaraman, DR, objected to the hearing of this appeal by this Bench on the ground that the subject matter fell within the jurisdiction of Special Bench-B. This objection was, however, overruled by us in view of the fact that the Special Benches have jurisdiction to hear all Special Bench matters and the division of work is of an administrative nature only for the sake of convenience and the parties were already present).2. M/s. M. J. Pharmaceuticals Limited (the appellants herein) imported a consignment of 47 Haemodialysis machines, spares and accessories.Among the goods were 6 units of Water Treatment Plant, one Reverse Osmosis unit and one Water Softening unit. A bill of entr...
Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC569Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur dated 12-4-1989.2. Brief facts so far as material for the purpose of the present appeal are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of copper and copper alloys falling under T.I. 26A with the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff at the relevant time i.e. to say from 1-3-1981 to 5-12-1985. A show cause notice C. No. IV(6)133/AE/85/803 was issued to the appellants by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur on 6-3-1986 calling upon them to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 11,83,19,476.94 leviable on the Shells and Blanks for pipes and tubes falling under Tariff Item 26A(4) during the period 1-3-1981 to 31-7-1984 and under sub-item (10) of T.I. 26A w.e.f. 1-8-1984, manufactured and cleared by the appellants from their factory premises during the period 1-3-1981 to 5-12-1985 without discharging their duty liability be not recovered and as to why the se...
Lalith Kumar Modi Vs. Assessing Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: (1991)37ITD422(Delhi)
1. The assessee, an individual has filed these appeals, of which the main issue arises in the appeal for the assessment year 1984-85, and the issues of the other years are merely consequential.2. The main issue relates to the claim of capital gain arising out of the sale of equity shares of Modi Rubber Ltd. to M/s Touchwood Investments (P.) Ltd., in which the relatives of the assessee were shareholders and directors. The assessee in the assessment year 1983-84 had sold 7000 equity shares of Modi Spg. & Weaving Mills Ltd., to the investment company and suffered a long term loss of Rs. 45,000. The assessee in the assessment year under appeal had sold 1599 equity shares of Modi Rubber Ltd., to the investment company, and realised a long term gain of Rs. 23,185. The assessee claimed the set off of the long term capital gain against the long term capital loss. The assessing officer found as a fact that, the shares of Modi Spg. & Weaving Mills Ltd. had not realized any dividend, whi...
Mentha and Allied Products Pvt. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)43ITD33(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue, respectively, arising out of the assessee's assessment for the assessment year 1984-85. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.2. The first contention raised in the assessee's appeal is whether receipts on account of cash compensatory support (Rs. 3,34,739) and income from sale of import licences (Rs. 3,66,063) are incomes from an industrial undertaking to be eligible for relief under Sections 80HHA and 80-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the Revenue's appeal, in ground No. 6, a grievance is made of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to include receipts on account of duty drawback in the profits of the industrial undertaking for purposes of quantification of admissible deductions under Sections 80HHA and 80-I.3. Under the aforesaid Sections, the assessees are entitled to...
Collector of Central Excise, Vs. Vardhan Syntex, Eastern Spinning
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1991
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC542Tri(Delhi)
1. The above mentioned appeals involve determination of the question of classification of cellulosic spun yarn manufactured out of synthetic waste of non-cellulosic origin and cellulosic fibre, in which cellulosic fibre predominates by weight The question arises in the context of TI 18 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As all appeals involve common issues they are heard together by consent and disposed of by a common order.2.1 E/3ft3/9O-fi--CCE. Nagpur v. M/s. Vardhan Svntex:In this appeal the respondents who are manufacturers of cellulosic spun yarn filed classification lists in respect of yarn which was made out of fibres falling under TI 181(ii) and waste falling under TI 18 IV, stating that viscose predominates and the yarn is manufactured by blending non-cel- lulosic waste. A show cause notice dated 28.12.1983 was issued to them proposing classification of the yam under TI 18 III(ii). The show cause notice stated as under: Whereas M/s. Var...
R.L. Import Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC184
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal dated 28-9-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay who had rejected the refund claim of the appellants on the ground that the rate of duty chargeable is the rate prevalent on the date of clearance of goods from the warehouse and not the rate prevalent on the date of expiry of bond period as contended by them.2. The appellants had imported a consignment of 'Homeopathic Medicines' on 22-1-1987 and warehoused the same under Section 59 of Customs Act, 1962 on 9-2-1987. The Bond period of three months under Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 expired on 9-5-1987 when the rate of auxiliary duty prevalent was 40%. However, the goods were cleared for home consumption on an ex-bond bill of entry on 1-10-1987. The auxiliary duty prevant at that time was 45% which was charged and paid. It was contended by the appellants before the lower authorities that as...
Ekantika Copiers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)(56)ELT350TriDel
1. Ekantika Copiers Private Ltd., 40/1, Industrial Area No. 4, Sahibabad (U.P.) has filed an appeal being aggrieved from a common order-in-appeal No. 416 to 428 CE/Meerut/84 dated 13th July, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. In column No. 3 of the appeal memo, the date of communication has been mentioned as 16th August, 1984. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on 15th November, 1984. The Registry had intimated the appellant vide letter F.No. ED(SB)A.No. 2454/84-B dated 30th November, 1984 issued on 1st December, 1984 as under :- "However, it is mentioned here that this is a case of multiple appeal involving 13 order-in-appeal (416 to 428 CE/MRT/84). So kindly file separate appeals against each order-in-appeal with fees of Rs. 200/- for each case." Since there are divergent views where a common order has been passed by the Collector (Appeals) disposing of a number of appeals, whether a single appeal should be filed or as many appeals as the...
V.S. Verma Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC484Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant who was posted as First Secretary in the Embassy of India, Kabul purchased a second-hand Mercedez Benz Car (1975 Model) from the Embassy of Bulgaria, Kabul on 12-11-1985 for a price of US $ 4500. On his return to India in 1988, the Customs authorities at Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi did not accept the price at which the appellant had purchased the car, but valued it at Rs. 53,566/- and its accessories at Rs. 3689/- for the purpose of assessment of duty. On rejection of his appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, he has, in his appeal before us, taken the plea that if his original request is not acceptable, the price of the car should be worked-out on the basis of the price indicated in the World Car Catalogue which, according to him, for his model of the Car is DM 16539. The prices indicated with an asterisk mark in this Catalogue are inclusive of Value Added Tax (VAT). According to two letters dated 16-5-1989 and 23-5-1989 from the Assistant Collecto...
Collector of Customs Vs. Sha Maggaji Manoharmal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC393Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the captioned appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Appeal dated 18-12-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. Sha Maggaji Manoharmal, Madras, imported a consignment of Snap Fasteners of Article Nos. of types AA VT 3 and AA VT 5. Likewise, the other respondents M/s. Roopchand Maggaji, Madras, imported a consignment of Snap Fasteners of types AA VT 3, AA VT 5, BB 220 and BB 220W. Both the consignments were assessed to duty under heading 9606.10 CTA, 1975 at 100% plus 40% with C. V, duty under Tariff Item 68. Subsequently, by their respective letters of even dates both the respondents claimed assessment of subject goods against Serial No. 10 of the Table attached to Notification No. 224/85-Cus dated 9-7-1985 as "Metallic Embellishment". However, the Assistant Collector (Customs), rejected the said claims holding that 'Snap Fasteners' in question cannot be considered as "Metallic Embe...
Lakshmiji Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC367Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) New Delhi dated 8-11-1989 in respect of loss of molases in 1984 during storage.2. At the outset a question arose whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of proviso (a) to Section 35B(1) which was added by way of amendment to Section 35B in 1984. The proviso reads as under : - "Provided that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in Clause (b) if such order relates to - (a) a case of loss of goods, where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehouse to another, or during the course of processing of the goods in a warehouse or in storage, whether in a factory or in a warehouse".3. The learned Counsel has pleaded that this proviso excludes only two types of case of laws of goods (i) loss in transit and (ii) loss during the course of processing.4. He has emphasised in thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »