Delhi Court December 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 2 of about 144 results (0.019 seconds)Sheesh NaraIn Agarwal Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT207TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved by Order No. 1/Collec-tor/Cus./89, dated 4-10-1989 ordering absolute confiscation of 525 Silver Coins valued at Rs. 14,175/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellants on the ground that the appellants admitted transport of specified goods to Bombay, a Specified Area, without cover of prescribed transport vouchers.2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the Collector's Adjudicating order in the very first para indicate that "the Preventive Officers Central Excise, Kanpur intercepted the appellant on 15-10-1980 who was coming to Railway Station alongwith one Shri R.K. Shukla. The Preventive Officers during the course of search recovered 525 coins of silver valued at Rs. 14,175.00 and..." The Show Cause Notice dated 13-7-1988 however indicates that Preventive Officer intercepted Shri Sheesh Narain Agarwal, the appellants on 15-10-1980 at Kanpur Railway Station. The Railway ticket from Kanpur to Bombay alongwith Platform ticket was also rec...
Tag this Judgment!Eternit Everest Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC338Tri(Delhi)
1. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Shri S.K. Kohli, learned counsel for the appellants submitted an application requesting for change of the cause title of the appeal as the name of the appellant company has been changed from M/s. Everest Building Products Ltd. to M/s. Eternit Everest Limited. The fresh certificate of incorporation consequent on change of name issued by the Addl. Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, Bombay confirming the change of name of Everest Building Products Ltd. to Eternit Everest Limited was submitted along with the application. We accordingly allow the application. The cause title of the appeal should accordingly be changed to read M/s. Eternit Everest Limited instead of Everest Building Products Ltd. 2. Taking up the appeal, Shri Kohli, learned advocate stated that the appellants have factories in four locations in different States. In the period February 1984 to April, 1984, they received at their Kymore (Madhya Pradesh) factory from their factory...
Tag this Judgment!Geep Indl. Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC47Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal by M/s. Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. is against the order-in-original, dated 12/22-11-1990 passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming a demand of duty of Rs. 3,37,880.81 and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The duty has been demanded by holding that they were not eligible for Modvat Credit in respect of Duplex Board claimed by them as an input in relation to the manufacture of their final product, Torches. The item Duplex Board was held to be not a packing material for torches. It would become a packing material only after it is converted into printed cartons. Torch cannot be packed in a Duplex Board. The amount of credit availed by them was held to be recoverable from them under the provisions of Rule 57-1 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. It was observed by the Addl. Collector that there was no question of time bar as the assessments were provisional till August, 1990. There is a finding of blatan...
Tag this Judgment!N.T.V. Multiwall Paper Bags (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT350TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 2-12-1987 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay holding the product Multiwall Paper Bags (Printed) and Multiwall Paper Bags (unprinted) is classifiable under residuary sub-heading 4818.90 and rejected the claim for Classification under sub-heading 4818.12 for printed bags, and sub-heading 1818.19 for unprinted bags.2. The Id. Collector has held that sub-heading 4818.12 is not stretchable beyond the scope of Heading 48.18 because it is only a sub-classification. He has held that the impugned product is no doubt a kind of container, as the appellants have claimed as per the "glossary of packing terms" or the publica-ton of "small industry research institute", but being flexible or non-rigid bags, hey do not fit the description such as in cartons, boxes, containers and cases including flattened or folded boxes and flattened or folded cartons). He has further held that the group of products covered by 48.18 clearly excludes non-rigid containers l...
Tag this Judgment!Anglo Dutch Paints, Colour and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC334Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Anglo Dutch Paints, Colour & Varnish Works Pvt. Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal No. 1003-CE/DLH/90, dated 9-11-1990 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi rejecting their appeal before him filed against order in original No.34/89-90, dated 17-5-1989 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, MOD III, New Delhi whereby he had, inter alia ordered that any Modvat credit taken by them from 1-4-1986 be paid back. The Collector (Appeals) had, while rejecting their appeal and confirming the Assistant Collector's order, held that though their plea, that no notice was issued was factually sustainable, it did not have much force in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. He observed that when they had got a favourable order in respect of the issue involved in the show cause notice it was neither fair not proper on their part to go back on their promise and object to the order of the Assistant Collector asking them to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Agarwal Ice Factory Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52ITD347(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal three separate issues which are being disposed of as under: 2. The assessee in this case carries on the business of manufacturing ice. It filed a return declaring net income of Rs. 27,500 but came to be assessed at a figure of Rs. 1,06,340 in the status of U.R.F.3. The ITO rejected the claim for set off in respect of carried forward loss of Rs. 51,151 on the ground that no such loss was available as assessment for assessment year 1985-86 had been completed at Rs. ML It was pointed out to him on behalf of the assessee that claims on account of carried forward unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance were available being absolutely legal and these could not be rejected.The however disagreed with the assessee and opined that "all the claims" had been considered in determining the figure of Rs. Ml. On further appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the view of the ITO.4. We have hea...
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Lal Surendra Kumar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT118TriDel
1. This application for restoration of appeal was dismissed on earlier occasion. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Manager of the Company submits that this application was dismissed on earlier occasion for non-appearance. He submits that on last occasion they could not appear because of disturbances in U.P. where roads were blocked and therefore requests for restoration of appeal to some convenient date.3. I find that appeal was dismissed for non-appearance but the appellants now explain that because of traffic jam they could not present themselves which was beyond their control. In view of the above circumstances the appeal be restored to its original number and be listed in due course....
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT34TriDel
1. The issue involved in all these appeals is relating to fixing of different wholesale prices to various wholesale dealers situated in the different regions of the country by considering the regional wholesale dealers as different classes of buyers. It arises out of determination of assessable value of the Hydrochloric Acid (HCL) and bleaching powder manufactured by the appellants in terms of Section 4 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. While submitting their price lists, the appellants declared a higher price for the dealers in Delhi region and for the dealers in outstations, a lower price was fixed. The price lists were submitted with the remark, "The zonewise prices have been arrived at after taking into account the freight element and market conditions since the dealer/consumer is concerned with delivered price and not the ex-works price." In the Show Cause Notices issued to the appellants, it was alleged that the prices declared in respect of outstation dealers is lower than...
Tag this Judgment!DIn Chemicals and Coatings (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC191Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Calcutta dated 25-3-1987.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant imports only 'Polyvinyl Alcohol Powder and make synthetic glue by dissolving in warm water and add glycerine to it. The final product contains about 15% of Polyvinyl Alcohol and about 3 to 4% glycerine and the rest is distilled water.3. The product is used as glue and sold in the market to be vised as paper adhesive.4. Initially the product was classified under Tariff Item 15A by the Asstt. Collector but then subsequently he changed the classification to Tariff Item 68 in view of a Tribunal's order cited by him namely 1984 (17) E.L.T. 460 (Tribunal) on the ground that it was being used as an adhesive.5. They accepted this classification and subsequently when the tariff changed they classified it under 3501.90. However, the Department seeks to change the classification to Heading 3905.20 which is a heading for Polyvinyl Alcohol in the Chapter of Plastics and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Sobha Singh and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissione ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)699
ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J. M. :The assessed and the Department are in cross appeals against the order of CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, dt. 17th Nov., 1987. The appeals are being disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience as the same involve common grounds.2. The assessed is in appeal on the ground that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 51,000 as unaccounted receipt. As against this, the Department is in cross appeal on the ground that the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting an addition of Rs. 2,25,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) allegedly representing the amount received by the assessed-company on account of money received for transferring the tenancy rights.3. The assessed-company filed the return on 27th June, 1985 showing total income of Rs. 4,48,980. The company owned the property known as Sujan Singh Park in one of the exclusive residential areas of New Delhi and its source of income disclosed was the rent from various residential ...
Tag this Judgment!