Delhi Court January 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 2 of about 100 results (0.018 seconds)Saidex Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(52)LC161Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants is an SSI unit manufacturing starch falling under T.I. 15C of erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. Prior to 1.3.1986, they were availing of the benefit of exemption to small scale industries under Notification No. 85/85-CE dated 17.3.1985. The said Notification was superseded and replaced by Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. The appellants were required to pay duty on their clearances during the month of March 1986 at the rates prescribed under the said Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. The operation of Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 was suspended during the period 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986 by Notification No. 202/86-CE dated 25.3.1986.2. The Notification No. 212/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 was issued in respect of the period 25.3.1986 to 31.3.1986. The rates prescribed under Notification No. 212/86-CE dated 25.3.1986 were equal to the rates prevalent prior to 1.3.1986 under Notification No. 85/85-CE dated 17.3.1985. Both these Notifications fully exe...
Tag this Judgment!Super Delicacies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(72)ELT374TriDel
1. Along with their appeal the appellants have also filed the captioned application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.2. Arguing on the application, Shri Pradeep Jain, Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order was communicated to the appellants on 23-8-1993 and the appeal was filed on 21-12-1993 and therefore the delay of 29 days (after the period of three months) be condoned. The application in hand itself stated that "The delay in filing the appeal is on account of the Advocate only (Para 1)". It is also stated that the appellants handed over the papers along with a draft for Rs. 1000/- to the counsel on 29-9-1993 and since the chamber of the appellant's Counsel was under renovation, the file was misplaced and was not traceable and, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of time. After the file was traced, the Counsel has taken immediate steps on the same day itself to get the appeal filed.It is also stated that identical/si...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Communication Network P. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)49ITD56(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) raising for our consideration numerous grounds.In the original memorandum of appeal ground No. 10 reads as follows : "That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not deleting Rs. 27,04,579 from the total income vis-a-vis valuation of closing stock." 2. This was supplemented with a "clarification ground" dated March 20, 1993 as under ; "It is contended that the authorities below should have recast the revenue account on 'cash basis' as per the mandate provided in Section 43B of the Income-tax Act and the resultant 'processed' profits alone should have been considered for the purposes of Sections 28 to 41." 3. It was the assessee's case all along that the issue being raised was identical to the one considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 240 and adjudicated in the assessee's favour whereas the Tribunal in certain...
Tag this Judgment!Chander Kant and Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994(1)ARBLR250(Delhi); 53(1994)DLT415
Mr. P. N. Nag, J.1. Disputes and differences having been arisen between the parties regarding construction of Shopping Centre II, Mayapuri, Phase 1, S.H., construction of 3 storeyed shops/office building on Plot No. 2 to 5 Mayapuri by Agreement No. 4/EE/CPDI/83-84/DDA, the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri J. K. Varshneya. Ex-Engineer, D.D.A. who was appointed as the sole arbitrator by the Engineer Member of the D.D.A. The arbitrator after having entered upon the reference gave his award dated 24.2.1992, which has been filed into this Court. 2. The petitioner has not filed objections to the award whereas the respondents have filed objections, being is No. 10178/92. 3. One of the objections taken by the respondents is that the arbitrator has erred in disallowing the recovery of Rs. 7,455/- under Clause 2 of the Agreement. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to clause 2 of the Agreement whereby in the case of delay in completion of the work the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Karachi Taxi Company
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]217ITR268(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), pertaining to the assessment year 1984-85, the Revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law, for the opinion of this court : '(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the income of Rs. 6,50,000 as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the basis of the material on record? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the acceptance of book results in the assessed's case for the year under consideration contradicting its own finding in the assessment year 1983-84 in similar circumstances, regarding rejection of books of account and applicability of section 145(2) in the assessed's case itself? (iii) Whether, o...
Tag this Judgment!Midland Fruit and Vegetable Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1994IAD(Delhi)526; 53(1994)DLT406; 1994(28)DRJ413; [1994]208ITR266(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J. 1. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common questions of law in respect of the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, were validly initiated by the Income-tax Officer 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had no material to hold that the sum of Rs. 25,518 in the assessment year 1964-65 and Rs. 44,619 in the assessment year 1965-66 represented the assessed's income from undisclosed sources ?' 2. The relevant facts as found by the Tribunal are that original assessments on the assessed, a private limited company, for the said assessment years were completed on a total income of Rs. 50,843 for the assessment year 1964-65 and on a los...
Tag this Judgment!inderpal Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 53(1994)DLT459
V.B. Bansal, J. (1) Petitioner has been facing trial in this case and the recording of the evidence of the prosecution started in the year 1988. There is only one eye witness of this occurrence, viz. Shri Pritpal Singh, who has not been produced by the prosecution so far. Vide order dated 28.10.1993 this Court directed the prosecution to produce this witness on the next date of hearing, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to bail for which purpose he would move an application before the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution failed to produce this witness. The case came up for hearing in this Court on 10.1.1994 and the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the State would ensure that the witness is produced in the Court on 14.1.1994 for which the case is listed before the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of this submission by the learned Counsel for the respondent the witness has not been produced. A prayer has, thereforee...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Communication Network (P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commiss ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1994)48TTJ(Del)604
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A. M. :This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for our consideration numerous grounds. In the original memorandum of appeal ground No. 10 reads as follows :'That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting Rs. 27,04,579 from the total income vis-a-vis valuation of closing stock.'2. This was supplemented with a 'clarification ground' dt. 20th March, 1993 as under :'It is contended that the authorities below should have recast the revenue account on 'Cash basis' as per the mandate provided in the S. 43B of the IT Act and the resultant 'processed' profits alone should have been considered for the purposes of Ss. 28 to 41.'3. It was the assesseds case all along that the issue being raised was identical to the one considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Lakhanpal National Ltd. vs . ITO : [1986]162ITR240(Guj) adjudicated in assesseds favor whereas the Tribunal in certain decisions delivered by it had decided the matter aga...
Tag this Judgment!Kerala State Electronics Dev. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC392Tri(Delhi)
1. The short point for our consideration in this appeal is whether the value of the 'Battery' is includible in the assessable value of the 'uninterrupted power supply' system.2. Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd., Trivandrum, were engaged in the manufacture of uninterrupted power supply (UPS) system, and parts thereof, falling under Heading No. 8543.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (the 'Tariff'). It was alleged in the show cause notice dt. 21-1-1991, that stationary storage battery, an integral part of the UPS system, was invoiced separately, and its value was not included in the price of the UPS system for the purposes of determining the assessable value, during the period 28-8-1986 to 31-3-1989. The Central Excise duty evaded was worked out at Rs. 5,88,724.85. The appellants pleaded that the battery is not manufactured by them and that the UPS system could work without a battery. On adjudication the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin hel...
Tag this Judgment!Leisureland Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT489TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the classification of the item 'Go-kart' under chapter sub-heading 8703.00 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 as 'Motor cars & other Motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than those of Heading No. 87.02) including station wagons and racing cars'. As a consequence of this classification, CED of Rs. 81,122.63 has been confirmed under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with proviso to Section 11 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, in respect of the said items removed from the appellant's factory without payment of duty during the period 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 (upto 26-4-1990), which had been demanded as per show cause notice dt. 22nd Oct. '90. In their detailed reply dt.4-2-1991, the appellants had claimed that the goods are not Motor cars and that they had not been 'principally designed for transport of persons'. The goods were manufactured/assembled by them purely and primarily for use for amuseme...
Tag this Judgment!