Delhi Court January 1992 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.
Raj Laminates (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT132TriDel
1. The issues arising for determination in this appeal are the classification under the 1st Schedule to the C.E.T.A., 1985 of paper based laminated sheets and the eligibility of the appellants to refund of excess duty paid on the goods during the periods from 17-2-1987 to 22-2-1988 and 11-3-1988 to 1-6-1988. The lower authorities have classified the goods under sub-heading No. 3920.37 as rigid laminated plastic sheets negativing the appellants' claim for classification under sub-heading No. 4823.90. The refund claims have been rejected as time-barred in terms of Section 11B of the C.E.S.A., 1944.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Banerjee, learned advocate & Shri L.N.Murthy, learned D.R.3. The classification issue stands settled by this Tribunal's decision in the case of Amit Polymers & Composites Ltd. v. C.C.E. Hyderabad - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 674 (Tri.) which was followed in Order Nos. 552 to 572/89-C, dated 29-9-1989 reported in 1990 (49) E.L.T. 75 (Tri.) in the case of Meghdoot Lamina...
Agra Metallurgical Engineers (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT160TriDel
1. Shri Kunhikrishnan, learned consultant in this stay application prays for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 49,532.41 P.demanded in the order-in-original by the Asstt. Collector and confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order.2. Shri Kunhikrishnan states that the reason for demand is that the bottom and top covers manufactured by them for Usha Ceiling Fans carries the brand name 'Usha'. He submits that this brand name was not affixed by them. The learned consultant states that this brand name is already there when they purchase the casting of bottom and top covers from the market. In these circumstances provisions contained in Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 will not be attracted in this case. He also submits that this plea was taken before the lower authorities but they have not dealt with it at all. Shri Kunhikrishnan states further that the proprietor of the applicant firm is a self-employed engineer and is also not in a position to pay the afores...
Elgi Tyre and Tread Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT107TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras on the question of classification of vulcanised, hardened, precured tread rubber which has been held to fall under Item 16A(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff, while the appellants were claiming its assessment under Item 68. Their alternative submission before the lower authorities was that in the event of the classification of goods being under Item 16A(2), they were entitled to exemption from duty under Notification 47/76-C.E., dated 9-3-1976 as amended by the Notification 193/80-C.E., dated 8-12-1980.Both the lower authorities had decided against the appellants, after considering the various grounds taken by the appellants before them.2. The impugned orders have been assailed on the ground that the subject product is not in the form of plates, sheets and strips as contemplated under Item 16A (2); that the goods are hardened rubber products and the authorities have not proved that they...
J.K. Batteries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1992
Reported in: (1993)(65)ELT419TriDel
1. These are the appeals filed against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 30-11-1984.2. The learned counsel stated that these three appeals relate to the leviability of additional duty of Customs on Carbon electrodes imported by the appellant firm for use in the dry battery cells and manufactured at the factory situated at Bhopal.3. The appellants have contested their classification and the rival entries are TI 67 and 68. It was their contention that they are not graphite rods but only carbon rods. They are classifiable under T.I. 68 and not T.I. 67.4. The learned Collector (Appeals) has dismissed their appeals as premature without going into the merits of the case on the ground that the appellants had not filed a refund claim but have filed straightaway these appeals. The learned Collector has observed that "in case the classification was incorrect as claimed by the appellant, the proper course was to file a claim of refund and if the claim was rejected and their rejection was in...
income-tax Officer Vs. Hansalaya Properties
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-02-1992
Reported in: (1992)41ITD290(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the revenue against an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 1980-81.2. The first grievance of the revenue in this appeal is that the CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the provisions of Section 49(1)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, are not applicable in assessee's case and directing the adoption of capital gains of Rs. 10,295 instead of Rs. 2,91,369 worked out and assessed by the Income-tax Officer. The facts relating to this issue are that the assessee firm M/s. Hansalaya Properties, a partnership firm was formed on August 8, 1970 with the sole purpose of constructing a multi-storeyed commercial building on the plot of land at 15-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, in which there were five partners during the assessment year under consideration having following shares:- The firm was constituted vide partnership deed dated 27-6-1974 with effect from 1-1-1973. There were changes in the constitution of the firm...
Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-01-1992
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT730TriDel
1. The issue is whether the value of imported goods can be enhanced on the basis of proforma invoice. The appellants imported a consignment of 30 cases containing two for one twister valued at Rs. 20,68,362 CIF.They filed a bill of entry No. 2804/113 dtd. 12-3-1984, against their import licence No. 208/124 dtd. 30-8-1983. A show cause notice dtd.4-5-1984 proposing to enhance the price from Rs. 20,68,362 to Rs. 23,29,000/- was issued. The proposal is based on the proforma invoice of the appellants. On receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the value was enhanced as proposed in the show cause notice. There was no penalty. Hence the appeal before us.2. The Collector held relying on the indenting agent's letter dtd.12-4-1984 stating that the price in the proforma invoice was offered, however, having regard to the special relationship between the supplier and the indenting agent reduced the price on the basis of negotiations.Therefore, the price negotiated being a special price is not ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›