Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 1 of about 93 results (0.022 seconds)Bhoruka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT652TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original No. 3/86 dt.25-4-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. By this order the learned Collector has held that the Product 'Ayur Shakti' and 'Santalin-D' is to be classified under T1 14E of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff as it is not exclusively ayurvedic medicine and ayurvedic drug.3. The facts of the case are that Central Excise officers of Preventive Unit Madras on certain enquiries and on the basis of information furnished by the manufacturing chemists of the Company and statement of Shri C.R. Nataraj, Marketing Adviser of the Company and Sh. Rama Krishna Agarwal, partner of the Company, it was concluded that these two products manufactured by the appellant, attract duty under TI 14E of the First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff as the said products were not made from the exclusively ingredients of Ayurveda and are also not exclusively Ayurvedic. Hence, a show cause notice dt. 18-7-1985 was issued...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Shankar Metal Trading Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts relating to this appeal directed against the Order dated 8-6-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta are as follows :- The respondents herein imported a consignment declared as Brass Ash which was cleared provisionally subject to the result of chemical test. The test result showed the goods to be in the form of brown coloured powdery material, essentially containing Brass Powder, Metallic Compound & Silicious matter. The Custom House took the view that the goods were other than brass ash, and appeared to have characteristics of brass powder in the form of brass waste assessable to duty under Heading 7404.00 CTA, 1975 as brass waste as against original assessment as brass ash under Heading 2620.90 CTA. A demand notice under Section 28( 1) of the Customs Act for duty of Rs. 1,40,688,70 was issued to the respondents on 18-12-186. The Assistant Collector held by his order dated 11-1-1989 that Brass Powder (BP) appearing in the test report ...
Tag this Judgment!Garware Nylons Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT647TriDel
1. The stay application has been filed for the waiver of the pre-deposit of an amount of Rs. 7,23,820/- demanded from the applicants herein by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Pune II vide order dated 8-3-1989 as confirmed by the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 4-5-1990. The facts, in brief, of the case are as follows: 2. The appellant imported PTA which was warehoused in the private bonded warehouse located in their factory. The appellant effected certain clearances in the month of October and paid duty at the exempted rate which was prevalent upto 30-9-1985. However, on this date a Notification had been issued enhancing the rate of duty from 100% to 150%. Accordingly, the Inspector incharge of the factory wrote a letter to them on 27-12-1985 that they have to pay the differential duty in respect of clearance from 30-9-1985 onwards. In their reply to the Inspector, the appellant drew attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Kumar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT335TriDel
1. These three appeals have been preferred against the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the basis of information, on 262-1985, the DRI officers carried out simultaneous searches at the premises of M/s. Gulati Cutpiece Store, M/s. Royal Video Cassettes Library and M/s. Gulati Karyana Store at Taran Taran, and seized the following goods of foreign origin:NAME OF THE PARTY GOODS RECOVERED VALUE OF GOODS1. M/s. Gulati Cutpiece Store 56 Video Cassettes Rs. 16,800.002. M/s. Gulati Karyana Store 20 Video Cassettes Rs. 6,000.003. M/s. Royal Video Cassettes Library 20 Video Cassettes & 1 VCR Rs. 12,000.00 In the order dated 11-8-1986 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs & Excise, Amritsar, the seized goods were confiscated absolutely under Section .1(d) of the Customs . Act, 1962 and penalty of ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Deensha Selvamahal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(39)LC27Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents imported a colour film printing machine and colour film analyser against Bill of Entry No. AC 532 dated 18.2.1983. After clearance of the goods they filed a refund claim on the grounds that the goods were assessable at the concessional rate at 40% under Notification No. 50/78-Customs dated 1.3.1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the grounds that under Notification No. 57/78 dated 1.3.1978 Printing Machine and Film Analyser were exempted provided they were imported for use in Cinematographic Laboratories, whereas the importers were engaged only in photo-printing which was not connected with the Cinematographic industry. The appeal filed by the respondents against the order passed by the Assistant Collector was allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who observed that the SSI certificate granted to M/s. Deensha S...
Tag this Judgment!Lampa Trading Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD534(Delhi)
Assessment order passed in undue haste and without making required enquires and proper scrutiny was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.The question is as to whether the assessing oficer has performed his duty which he is normally expected to do and as to whether due care has been taken in safeguarding the interests of revenue. The facts and circumstances justified an enquiry and deep scrutiny which the assessing officer has failed to make in this case rendering his order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue.1. Assessee's appeal is directed against the order under Section 263 of CIT, Delhi-II dated 25th March, 1987. The appellant company was incorporated on 28th April, 1982 with its registered office at 9-Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta. For assessment year 1984-85, return was filed on 30th June, 1984 declaring a loss of Rs. 17,590. In the return of income the address given was B-72, Himalaya House, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and on that basis the return...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. S. Pushpam Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD26(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises out of the estate duty assessment in the matter of the estate of late Shri R. Satakopan, who died on the 1st of October, 1976 and the only point that arises in this appeal is about the extent of the share of the deceased in property No. D -25, N.D.S.E Part-II, New Delhi that passed on his death.2. The said Shri R. Satakopan constituted a Hindu Undivided Family with his brother Shri Ramanujam. Ramanujam had a son Murali Manohar. The aforesaid immovable property was owned by the said HUF. The deceased Shri R. Satakopan executed a will on the 4th of September, 1975 by which he bequeathed his undivided share in the aforesaid property to his nephew Murli Manohar aforesaid and all his movable properties to his wife Smt. Pushpam Satakopan. The aforesaid bequests have been made in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the will, which are reproduced below :- 1.1 hereby devise and bequeath my undivided share in the aforesaid property No. D-25, NDSE-2, New Delhi absolutely in favour of Sri...
Tag this Judgment!Manaktala Chemicals (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD35(Delhi)
1. Earlier, when this appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench, it was felt that the following question necessitates consideration of a larger Bench for disposal of this appeal in terms of Section 255(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A request was, therefore, made by the Division Bench to the President to constitute a larger Bench and refer the following question :- Whether the term 'deposits' as defined in Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, excludes from its operation deposits received by a private company from its directors and shareholders? 2. The assessee is a private limited company. The Income-tax Officer, while framing the assessment for the assessment year 1983-84, made a disallowance of Rs. 12,825 under Section 40A(8), being 15 per cent of Rs. 85,505 paid as interest by the assessee-company. The disallowance was made without any discussion or stating the material facts.3. The assessee appealed to the CIT (Appeals) before whom the assessee objected to the disallowa...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. J.S. Construction Co.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD460(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue arising out of the assessee's assessment for assessment year 1985-86 and challenges the direction of the CIT (Appeals) for allowing investment allowance to the assessee company.2. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and the learned counsel for the assessee.3. The assessee is a building contractor and during the year under consideration it was executing building works for the Delhi Development Authority. It claimed investment allowance and the assessing officer rejected the claim observing that the assessee was not a manufacturing concern. On appeal the learned CIT (Appeals) directed as under :- 2. The first objection in this appeal is directed against the action of the ITO in not allowing the claim of Investment Allowance amounting to Rs. 28,104. The ITO had disallowed the claim on the ground that the appellant-firm is not a manufacturing concern. In this regard it is claimed that the firm is a construction company and is covered u...
Tag this Judgment!Yoshida Kogyo K.K. Vs. Rajindra JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT655
Usha Mehra, J. (1) Defendant by this application wants ex-parte , Interim injunction granted by this Court vide order dated 25th July, 1991 be vacated. The basis of this prayer is that the defendant had been selling genuine product purchased from M/s. Art Work Export Ltd. Calcutta. These products which were seized by the police were purchased against the bills and challans from the said concern who in turn had imported the same from the foreign manufacturer in Korea. The goods which the defendant bad been selling are all genuine nylon goods manufactured in Korea by the authorised manufacturers of the plaintiff under their alleged trade marks. Moreover after 1988 defendant has not been dealing in the sale of these products. (2) In Order to dispose of this application, the brief facts of the case are to be understood. Scantly the facts are that the plaintiff M/s. Yoshida Kogyo K.K. a company incorporated under the laws Of Japan having the registered office at Tokyo. Japan is manufacturin...
Tag this Judgment!