Delhi Court October 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 2 of about 93 results (0.021 seconds)L.R. Talwar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52ITD44(Delhi)
1. These three appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 are directed against common order of CIT (Appeals) dated 18-11-1988. The office of the Tribunal pointed out that impugned order was communicated to the assessee on 20-12-1988 and appeal was filed on 6-7-1992. Consequently, there was delay of three years six months and 17 days in filing the appeal.2. The assessee-applicant has sought to get the delay condoned with the following averments : The assessee has filed appeals against the orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bareilly for the assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 along with this application. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was communicated to his counsel Sri Ram Ji Das on 20-12-1988. The assessee asked him to file the appeal against the said order. It is pointed out that the assessee is engaged in the business of Exports and turnover runs into Crores and so he has to live mostly out of the count...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Cement Vs. Cegat
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(75)ELT474(Del)
ORDERK. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner has sought review of an earlier order dated 1-2-1994 whereby this court directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded amount within 2 months and to furnish security of immovable property for the remaining 50% within 2 months from the date of the order so that the Tribunal may hear the petitioner's appeal on merits. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly with an observation that in case the petitioner does not comply with the said order the appeal of the petitioner would be dismissed. 2. Certain facts require to be noted to appreciate the present petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner imported certain material. The consignment arrived on 24-1-1991 at New Delhi. It was detained by the Customs Department attached to the Air Cargo Complex. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued. According to the Customs authorities the imported materials were trade advertisement materials/commercial catalogues and not technical co...
Tag this Judgment!Exportos Apparel Group Ltd. Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT297; 1997(91)ELT307(Del)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) The petitioner, engaged in the business of import-export has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents and or the customs authorities under the respondents to release its goods being the electronic integrated circuits imported by the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents and other customs authorities from taking any adverse action against the petitioner. Detention or non-clearance of the aforesaid goods has also been questioned as being without jurisdiction. Lastly., a writ of certiorari is sought quashing circular dated 9 May 1994 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Excise and Customs) (C.B.E.C. for short). By this letter the C.B.E.C. had instructed the officers of the customs under the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') not to follow the instructions issued by the Directora...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Rubber Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC519Tri(Delhi)
1. These three Appeals have been filed by three different appellants against a common Order-in-Appeal, dated 25-7-1994 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Ld. Counsel stated that all the three appeals relate to the same issue and the same period only the amounts involved are different.4. It was their contention that they are manufacturers of rubber products of various shapes classifiable under Chapter 40.5. Initially all of them had filed the classification list under Heading 4016.99 and also claimed benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and these classification lists had been duly approved by the proper officer and the goods were accordingly cleared on payment of duty as indicated therein.6. Subsequently, however, department was of the view that this classification was erroneous and the goods were required to be classified under 40.08 - the sub-heading depending upon their being cellular or non-cellular type and issued the show cause notice.7. At this stage the...
Tag this Judgment!Rolax Applied Components Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC60Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, confirming a demand of Rs. 8,64,983.58 representing Modvat credit alleged to have been wrongly availed of by the appellants between April 1986 and August 1987 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh for contravention of the relevant rules. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of information gathered, the Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the factory premises of the appellants who are manufacturers of auto parts and accessories. They were found to be availing Modvat credit in respect of copper wires and chemicals (nickel sulphate, nickel chloride, boric acid and chromic acid etc.) without actually bringing the same into the factory and without utilising the same for manufacture of their finished product inside the factory. It was also observed that there was no facility for electroplating the goods. Statement of Sudhir Pahuja, Manager was recorded in which he stated that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Sanjay Singh Sandhu
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)51ITD560(Delhi)
1. By means of these applications preferred under Section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (inadvertently mentioned as under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act), the applicant has sought to point out an error apparent from the record in the orders passed by the Tribunal in respect of the present two assessees contending in the process that the orders of the Tribunal were based on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sharbati Devi Jhalani v. CWT [1986] 159 ITR 549 which decision subsequently came to be over-ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1. It is submitted in the applications that an order which was a good order at the time when it was passed may subsequently reveal a mistake apparent from the record in the light of a subsequent Supreme Court decision and the authorities which passed the earlier order were duty-bound to rectify the same so as to eliminate the said error. It is further submitted that t...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Delhi Metal Store
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)123CTR(Del)53; [1995]211ITR622(Delhi)
D. K. Jain, J. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), the following question for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the present was not a case of change in the constitution of the firm, and in directing that separate assessments be made on the two firms, instead of one consolidated assessment ?' 2. The material facts as found and narrated by the Tribunal in the statement of the case are as follows : Originally, the assessed-firm consisted of five partners with a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. With effect from January 1, 1969, there were certain changes in the constitution of the firm, with which we are not concerned, except to mention that the deed of partnership contained the following three clauses : '17. That if any party desires to retire from the partnersh...
Tag this Judgment!Rajinder Pershad Vs. Nathu Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 56(1994)DLT279; 1995(32)DRJ252; 1995RLR121
J.K. Mehra, J.1. On this petition coming up for hearing on 18th October 1994, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. As such in the interest of justice, a notice was issued to the counsel for the respondent for today. Even today, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice on his counsel. In the circumstances, I have heard the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner in the absence of the respondent.2. I find that the premises in dispute are residential and had been let also for residential use. From the impugned order it appears that the Rent Controller was impressed by the submissions of the respondent relating to the validity or otherwise of the decree passed by Civil Court whereby the award partitioning the property including property in dispute was made a rule of the court and a decree was passed on the basis thereof. The Additional Rent Controller appears to have committed a serious error by going behind a decree passed by a Civil Court c...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ece Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC115Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is filed by the department and directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, dated 9-8-1993. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned DR appearing for the department submitted that the issue arising for determination in the appeal are with reference to include the assessable value of the expenditure incurred by the respondents in regard to (i) Staff Colony expenditure, (ii) expenditure incurred on Research & Development and (iii) expenditure relating to abnormal wastage. While the learned DR commenced his submissions with reference to the includibility of the expenditure on staff colony expenses, Shri V. Sridharan, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not contesting this plea appealed against. Therefore, the plea of the learned DR for includibility of this expenditure is upheld.2. In regard to the wastage, the learned DR contended that the Collector (Appeals) has worked out 50% without giving any basis as...
Tag this Judgment!C.C.E. Vs. Travancore Electro Chemical
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(74)ELT936TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department (Collector of Central Excise, Cochin) against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras No. 47/88, dated 27-4-1988.2. The Respondents have sent a telegraphic request for adjournment on the ground that the concerned Executive Director was ill.3. It is however, observed that the matter has come up on Board several times and on the last two occasions it was adjourned on the request of the appellants on mention by the Ld. Counsel Shri Lahoty and today's date was fixed after taking note of the convenience of both the sides as a whole day matter. Therefore, we are surprised to see that the Ld.Counsel has not appeared and the request has been sent on above ground.We do not consider it as sufficient ground as it was open to the Ld.ST. Counsel to appear and argue.4. We therefore, reject the request for adjournment and allow the Ld.D.R. to proceed with the matter. While doing so we also taken note of the fact that the Respondents hav...
Tag this Judgment!