Delhi Court December 1993 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds - plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mec India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)(51)LC91Tri(Chennai)
1. Heard both sides. All these appeals deal with the same product and hence these have been heard together and are being decided by a common order. There are two issues involved; (i) whether the 'Additional Collector' could exercise the power of 'Collector' under the proviso to Section 11-A of demanding duty short-levied beyond six months; and (ii) whether the product Madhur T.V. was entitled to the concessional rate under Serial No. 18 of Notification No. 87/89-C.E., dt. 1-3-1989.2. As regards the second issue the stand of the Department is that the T.V. was combined with a sound recording/repreducing apparatus, namely, stereo cassette recorder. The plea of the appellant is that the said cassette player was merely supplied free along with the T.V. but could function independently and was not 'combined' with the T.V.3. The learned Advocate handed over written propositions in support of the two pleas which are reproduced below for facility of reference: "An Additional Collector can acq...
Dr. Ashok Sapra Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1993
Reported in: (1994)49ITD501(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90 is directed against order of DCIT(A), Rohtak upholding rejection of assessee's petition under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee in the relevant period filed return declaring income at Rs. 36,600. The aforesaid income also included income assessable under the head "Salary", at Rs. 33,300 as per certificate enclosed. The certificate filed showed that the salary income was received by the assessee from his HUF.3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide its order dated 31-12-1990. In the aforesaid order, he accepted the salary income as disclosed but made addition of Rs. 15,800 in the professional income disclosed by the assessee.4. Subsequently, the assessee realised that standard deduction permissible under Section 16(1) of the Income-tax Act out of salary income was neither claimed nor allowed in the assessment made as per...
Collector of Central Ex. Vs. Densons Pultroteknik
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-27-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT628TriDel
1. The issues involved in all these six appeals are interlinked and hence these were heard together and are being decided by a common order.2. Out of six appeals, the first five appeals have been filed by the Department against various Orders-in-Appeal mentioned therein and the last one has been filed by M/s. Densons Pultroteknik.3. The history of the matter and the issues involved in these appeals as brought out in the Paper Book filed by the learned Advocate for the respondent in the first five appeals and the appellant in the sixth appeal are as follows: "Unit M/s. Densons Engineers started in 1987. Started manufacture of Epoxy Cast Components like Crotch Belly, Bushing and declared under 3926.90 as other Articles of Plastics claiming exemption under Notification No. 132/86 and amended by Notification No. 53/88. Classification Lists effective 9-10-1987, 1-3-1988, 13-7-1988 and 16-8-1988 approved under 3926.90 by the Asstt. Collector. Classification was on the basis of Order-in-Appe...
Jhalani Tools (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT788TriDel
1. The issue for determination in the above 4 appeals is the eligibility or otherwise of grinding belts and grinding wheels used by the appellants in the manufacture of handtools to the benefit of modvat credit in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. The appellants are manufacturers of handtools such as spanners, wrenches, pliers, etc. falling under Chapter 82 which products are obtained essentially by forging, and after forging and trimming, they emerge with sharp edges. Emery/abrasive materials are used in the form of Grinding Belts/Emery Belts and Grinding Wheels without frame works are classifiable under Chapter 68, are used to smoothen the sharp edges of the handtools in order to make them marketable. The appellants had filed declarations under Rule 57G for the purpose of availing credit of duty paid on grinding wheels and grinding belts, declaring these two items as raw materials for the manufacture of handtools. As it appeared to the Department that the two it...
Suraj Sharma Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-24-1993
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)75; 1994CriLJ321; 1994(2)Crimes1161; 1994(28)DRJ223
Sat Pal, J.(1) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) and in this petition it has been prayed that order dated 3rd November, 1993 passed by Shri S.N.Kapur, Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, a designated Court under Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention Act) (in short TADA) be quashed and the petitioner he ordered to be released on bail in terms of earlier bail order.(2) Briefly staled the facts of the case are that the petitioner was arrested under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code, 27/54/59 Arms Act and Section 5 of Tada pertaining to Fir No.410/92 P.S.Gokulpuri. Thereafter the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara vide order dated 5th November, 1992 granted bail to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner would not visit the locality of Mangat Ram (Respondent No.2) who was the complainant in the said ...
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)(53)LC442Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that by his Order dt.6.7.1976 the Asstt. Collector held that the value of the bags used by the Appellants for packing cement was includible in the assessable value of cement since the bags were not returnable by the buyers to the manufacturer. He therefore informed the Appellants that the question of any refund of duty on the value of packing charges did not arise and directed them to pay the duty demanded on such packing charges. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Asstt. Collector, the Appellants filed an Appeal before the Appellate Collector who vide his Order dt.22.6.1977 confirmed the Order passed by the Asstt. Collector. The operative part of the Appellate Collector's Order is reproduced below: I have carefully gone through the records of the case and all the relevant acts and issues as obtained in the records and also those represented by the defence advocate in course of personal hearing. With the introduction of new Section ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cosmo Ferrites Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT613TriDel
1. This is a revenue appeal. In this appeal, the revenue has challenged the correctness of the order in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Chandigarh. The ld. Collector (Appeals) has held that soft ferrites cannot be classified as parts of Electromagnetics and, therefore, are more appropriately classifiable as parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of Heading No. 85.25 and 85.29.2. The facts of the case are that the assessee are manufacturing power ferrites i.e. U-cores, B-cores, and Torroids which are used as parts of special purpose transformers and which are used as components in T.V.sets, computers and other electronic gadgets. The Soft Ferrites have no other general purpose or application. The assessee also manufacture Yoke Ring Cores which are directly used as parts and components of TV sets. They had claimed the classification of the said power ferrites under Heading 8504.0 i.e. as parts of transformers or, in the alternative, claimed classification ...
Wool Combers of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC611Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 13-4-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants sought classification of their product, 'Lanolin Anhydrous' as medicament under subheading 3003.20 at 'Nil' rate of duty. According to the appellants 'Lanolin Anhydrous' or purified Degras is nothing but a bulk drug which is specified in Indian Pharmacopoeia. They have claimed that it is classifiable under subheading 2942.00 read with Notification No. 234/86 as an organic compound. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner the product was found to have characteristics of "Lanolin Anhydrous (Purified Degras)". According to Hawley's 'Condensed Chemical Dictionary' 'Lanolin Anhydrous' is derived from wool grease which is a crude grease obtained by solvent treatment of wool and contains Cholesterol Esters which on purification and refinement give 'Lanolin Anhydrous' -wool grease is also known as wool fat, ...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. General Marketing and Mfg. Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-21-1993
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC399Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals, one filed by the Collector of Customs, Madras and the second filed by M/s General Marketing & Mfg. Co. These two appeals arise out of the same order and therefore are being disposed of by common order.2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals). As the imports in this case took place between 1986 and 1991, the learned Collector divided the entire issue in two parts; (a) Imports prior to 16.8.1988 covered by Customs Valuation Rules, 1963 and (b) Imports on or after 16.8.1988 covered by Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988.3. On the 1st issue namely Customs Valuation Rules. 1963f in his order, the learned Collector held that the position regarding the valuation of goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to 16th August, 1988 however, would be different since under the pre-amended Section 14, there was no legal recognition of the concept of...
Hindustan Aluminium Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-20-1993
Reported in: (1994)LC413Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 24th November, 1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported 'Ceramic Fibre Blocks (Pyro Blocks) for industrial furnaces. In the Bill of Entry filed on 8-5-1987 in respect of the imported goods, assessment was claimed under Heading 6806.90 read with Notification No. 26/84-Cus., dated 22-2-1984 at 40% basic duty + nil auxiliary + 12% C.V. duty. New sub-heading 9806.00 was introduced from 1-3-1984 for "Parts of machinery, equipments, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90". The Custom House was of the view that the imported goods were assessable under Heading 9806.00 read with Notification No. 69/87 dated 1-3-1987 at 45% basic + 40% auxiliary + 'Nil' C.V. duty. The goods were cleared provisionally under Heading 6806.90. After clearance of the goods the assessment was finalised by the order dated 11-3-1988 passed by the Assistan...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »