Delhi Court September 1991 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1991 Page 9 of about 93 results (0.022 seconds)Pudumjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(38)ECC74
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-5-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper. They imported a consignment of paper making felt or Dryer Screen in October, 1985.While the appellants classified the paper making felt under Heading 59.16/17 CTA 1975, the Assistant Collector classified the goods under Heading 59.01/15 CTA. After the clearing the goods on payment of duty as classified by the Department at higher rate, the appellants filed a refund claim for excess payment of duty amounting to Rs. 70,684.75, claiming lower assessment on the ground that the paper making felt imported by them was of kind commonly used in machinery and eligible according to them to lower rate of duty under Heading 59.16/17 CTA. By his order dated 9-12-1986, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Deptt., Bombay Customs House rejected the claim on the ground that the goods even according to th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC199Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Patna, has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR, has appeared on behalf of the appellant-Collector and pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. He referred to internal page 3, para 5 of the grounds of appeal where it has been mentioned that the Revenue vide Collector's office letter dated 16-6-1983 had requested for granting an opportunity to the Department to present Revenue's case.Shri Arora pleaded that the request of the appellant has been ignored by the Collector (Appeals) and as such there was denial of principles of natural justice. Ms. Amrita Mitra, the learned Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents stated that on merits she has got a good case. Since there is a prayer by the appellant for denial of principles of natural justice, she does not object to the remand of the matter especially when she d...
Tag this Judgment!Cce Vs. Ganesh Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC398Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Ganesh Steel Industries who are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 opted for credit under MODVAT Scheme under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. After filing the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944 they received runners & risers weighing 37.15 MT against gate pass showing classification of goods under heading No. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. They availed MODVAT credit amounting to Rs. 15,867.50 as basic excise duty and Rs. 793.38 as special excise duty. They were served with a notice by the Assistant Collector asking them to show why credit availed by them should not be disallowed since they had not specifically mentioned 'runners & risers' as input in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G, covering...
Tag this Judgment!Pradeep Batra Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)39ITD406(Delhi)
1. We are disposing of these three appeals involving identical issues by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The facts, being para materia the same, in the case of Shri Sudhir Batra are stated and the decision arrived at would apply to other two cases.2. In the case of Sudhir Batra, notice under Section 139(2) was issued on 20th August, 1981. The return of income was, however, filed on 20th March, 1984 declaring agricultural income at Rs. 1,33,861. The agricultural income was claimed to be l/5th share in M/s K.L.Agricultural Farm. Income and expenditure account along with balance sheet had been filed. Cash book, ledger register, salary register and vouchers had also been filed. On scrutiny of accounts the ITO came to the conclusion that the books of account in the case of K.L.Agricultural Farm were not correct and complete and as such he resorted to an estimate. He referred to the decision of the ITAT in the case of ITO v. Satya Pal Rawat [IT Appeal Nos. 2360 and 3145...
Tag this Judgment!Rajnider Kumar Sharma Vs. Kharaiti Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT311
C.L. Chandhary, J.(1) This regular second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 10.4.1979 by which the appeal of the respondent was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed.(2) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellant, Shri H.S. Sharma, hied a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent on the allegations that he was the owner and landlord of the premises N o. 26, Faiz Bazar, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110006. That on 2.3.1960 he accepted the respondent as a Manager in his tailoring business which was later put under the name and style of M/s. Upkeep Tailors, who agreed to work as Such on me terms and conditions given in his undertaking of inc same date. That with effect from 2.3.1960 the defendant Was permitted to use the shop on the ground floor of the building No. 26, Faiz Bazar, Delhi marked red in the plan attactied, only to manage the plaintiff's tailoring ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Narendra Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC54
1. This appeal relates to the classification of Everest brand 'Milk Masala' manufactured by the appellants for which they had filed Classification List No. 1 dated 8-5-1986 claiming its classification under subheading 0801.10 and exemption from duty under Notification 29/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986. Their claim was not accepted and the 'Milk Masala' was classified under sub-heading 2107.91 as edible preparations, not elsewhere specified or included and put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale.2. The Assistant Collector relied upon Note 5(b) of Chapter 21 of the Central Excise Tariff which is as under :- (b) preparations for use, either directly or after processing (such as cooking, dissolving or boiling in water, milk or other liquids), for human consumption." 3. The Assistant Collector held that milk masala is used with milk to give better taste and flavour and, in his opinion it was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 2107.91 and would attract 15% duty.4. Collect...
Tag this Judgment!Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(37)LC604Tri(Delhi)
1. These three appeals involve consideration of common questions and were heard together. They are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. The details of the three cases relevant for our purposes are as underAppeal Date of Show Period Amount of duty Date of orderNo. Cause Notice covered(a) 2464/86 02.02.1985 12.12.1984 Rs. 22,62,373.70 24.12.1985Deccan 15.04.1985 to(b) 2542/87 18.12.1985 28.11.1984 Rs. 13,11,346.42 29.10.1986Salem to(c) 2543/87 13.06.1985 08.04.1985 Rs. 13,84,362.00 29.10.1986Sakthi to 2. The facts relevant for determination of the dispute in the first appeal are that Range Officer, Central Excise, Karur, learnt that the appellants had erected two coal fired boilers and were producing steam, an excisable commodity falling under item 68 of the Central Excise tariff and that the steam so produced was being released through pipe line to sugar factory of M/s. Deccan Sugars of Abhhari Ltd. (DS). The Range Officer discovered that the central excise duty payable on ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ganesh Steel Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT271TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. Ganesh Steel Industries who are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 opted for credit under MODVAT Scheme under Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. After filing the declaration under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they received runners & risers weighing 37.15 MT against gate-pass showing classification of goods under Heading No. 7206.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. They availed MODVAT credit amounting to Rs. 15,867.50 as basic excise duty and Rs. 793.38 as special excise duty. They were served with a notice by the Assistant Collector asking them to show why credit availed by them should not be dis-allowed since they had not specifically mentioned 'runners & risers' as input in the declaration filed by them under Rule 57G, coveri...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Saleem Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1992CriLJ1959; 45(1991)DLT322; 1991(21)DRJ279
A.B. Saharya, J.(1) By this judgment I proceed to record the reasons pursuant to the following order passed by me on 13th August, 1991 - 'THE appellant is in Jail. Hearing the appeal has concluded today. For reason to follow, the appeal is allowed. The appellants should be released forthwith. if be be not required to be detained for any other cause.'(2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, both dated 29th November, 1988, made by Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi convicting the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R I. for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 200.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and to concurrently undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs .200.00 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.(3) The prosecution case in brief is that on 15th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!J.K. Cement Works Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT426; 1992(37)ECC23; 1994(73)ELT276(Del)
P.N. Nag, J. (1) The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the cost of packing of cement in gunny bags is not includable in the assessable value under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excise & Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). (2) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners, Ms. J.K. Cement Works (hereinafter referred to as the assessed) manufacture ordinary Portland Cement and clear the same duly packed in gunny bags of 50 Kgs. each on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty on ad valorem basis in terms of Section 4 of the Act (as amended in 1973 and which amendment came into force on 1st October, 1975). It appears that a revised price list w.e.f. 1. 10. 1975 in pursuance of the amended Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Act for ordinary portland cement, without including cost of packing charges on account of gunny bags at the rate of 40.98 per metric tonne submitted by the assessed to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Chittorgarh ...
Tag this Judgment!