Delhi Court March 1994 Judgments

Chemilab Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC140Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 22-2-1993 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. In this appeal the question that arises for consideration is the correct classification of the goods described in the Bill of Entry "Densitometers, TLC Aluminium Sheets Silica Gel 60 F 254" under Sub-heading 9027.90 of Customs Tariff Act read with Notification No. 65/88-Cus. (Item No. 70). The lower authorities have held the same as classifiable under Sub-heading 7607.19 for the purpose of customs duty and under Heading 7607.40 read with the Notification No. 69/89-C.E. for the purpose of additional duty of Excise and Special Excise Duty. The adjudicating officer had held that the Sub-heading 90.27 of the Customs Tariff covers Chromatographs and the impugned goods are not Chromatographs, but are for use in Densitometer and that the Heading 9027.90 does not cover Densitometer or parts/accessories or consumables used in densitometer. On appeal, the Collector also did ...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Mahendra Engg. and Chemical

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1037TriDel

1. The only issue involved in the present appeal relates to the classification of products, namely, Dual Pack of Epoxy Adhesive Resin with Hardener. Both the authorities below have classified the said product manufactured and produced by the Respondents under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 of CET and, therefore, the Revenue has come in appeal before this Tribunal.2. Smt. J.M.S. Sundaram, Ld. SDR submitted that the subject product be classified under Heading 15A(I) of CET as the respondents bring duty paid synthetic resin and hardener in bulk; they re-pack these in Dual Pack of smaller quantities and market the same under their own brand name; that being packed separately there is no chemical change in the resin and it continues to be classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(I); and that the resin gives the main characteristic of the Dual Pack and the Hardener is simply an aid in effective performance of the resin at the time of its actual use. Coupled with the fact that the Dual Pack marketed...

Chemo Search Laboratories (P) Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)(52)LC538Tri(Delhi)

1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the refund claim filed by the appellants by the authorities below, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Drugs imported a consignment of Ethyl Thio Ethanol and filed the Bill of Entry for warehousing for the clearance of the imported goods. Thereafter, they filed exbond Bill of Entry for the clearance of a part of the consignment imported, that is to say, 3000 kg. for home consumption. The said exbond Bill of Entry was assessed to duty under Heading 2905.50. The appellants paid the duty accordingly. At the time of the clearance of the subject goods, the appellants did not claim the benefit of customs Notification No.14/88, but subsequently claimed the refund of the duty and produced the certificate of consumption of the goods duly certified by their Chartered Accountant showing the details of the consumptions of the goods in their factor...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Pioma Indus. and Imperial Soda

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC177Tri(Delhi)

1. Being aggrieved with the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. During the pendency of the appeal an objection was raised by the Respondents that the appeal is time-barred. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that against the Order-in-Orginal No. V-1B(2-1) 83, dated 15-9-1986 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise an appeal was filed by the respondents before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that it was passed without jurisdiction. However, he also observed that this Order of him would not in any way affect the jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise from taking appropriate steps open to him under the statute. This order was passed on 14-4-1987 and not on 15-4-1987 as stated in the Memo of Appeal before us. Against this order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appe...

Everest Building Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC19Tri(Delhi)

1. Being dissatisfied with the denial of exemption Notification No.272/79-C.E., dated 18-10-1979 the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of Asbestos Cement Products falling under Tariff Item No.23(C) of Central Excise Tariff. They cleared these Asbestos Cement Products on 13-2-1982 and 22-5-1982 valuing Rs. 2,69,322.10 to Kandla Free Trade Zone (for short KFTZ) without payment of duty under exemption Notification No. 272/79-C.E. However, a show cause notice was issued to them proposing to deny the benefit of the said notification alleging that according to Proviso (c) of the said Notification, the excisable goods so obtained without payment of duty are to be used in the KFTZ of the production of goods meant for export and all such manufactured goods are to be exported according to the procedure laid down in the Notification and since asbestos sheets in the instant case cleared by the appellants i...

Shaukat Shah Khan Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)54ITD241(Delhi)

1. This is an appeal of the Accountable Persons challenging the order dated 20-3-1991 of the Appellate Controller of Estate Duty, Lucknow as erroneous on facts and in law. (a) Shri Shaukat Shah Khan, the deceased, died on 20th January, 1975 in London. The Assistant Controller of Estate Duty held that the deceased was domiciled in India, but not a British domicile as claimed on the basis of the judgment dated 12-3-1982 of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and assessed the duty on the estate of the deceased in the foreign property. (b) In the Estate of the Indian property, he took the value of half share of the deceased in Kothi and land at 122, Civil Lines in Bareilly in the sum of Rs. 13,63,042 valued by the Government-approved valuer for the entire property by rejecting to adopt the value in its place at Rs. 12,38,397.05 being the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for the entire property. (c) Further, the claim of exemption of Rs. 1,00,000 under S...

L and T Gould Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1994)LC21Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original dt.12-3-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.2. The question that arises for our consideration is the correct classification of the product "Signal Conditioning Amplifiers". The ld.Collector has held the same to be classifiable under chapter sub-heading 85.18 of Central Excise Tariff, 1985 attracting duty of 20% ad valorem and has rejected the prayer for clsssification under chapter sub-heading 90.30 of the said Act.3. The appellants were issued with a show-cause notice dt.10-10-1991 alleging mis-declaration of the said item as an "Apparatus for measuring or checking Electrical Quantities", when the said goods appeared to be nothing but audio frequency electric amplifiers specifically covered under chapter subheading No. 8518 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, thereby paid lesser duty of 5% instead of 20%, for the period from 1988-89 to 1990-91. The differential duty of Rs. 9,31,453.60 BED and Rs. 46,...

Decorous Investment and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)64

ORDERN. D. RAGHAVAN, J. M. :This is an appeal of the assessed challenging the revisionary order dt. 23rd March, 1988 of the CIT as erroneous on facts and in law.2. Relevant facts of the case are briefly these : The assessed, a resident, having the status of public limited company and the accounting period ending with 31st Dec., 1983 for the asst. yr. 1984-85 filed on 30th June, 1984 its return declaring a loss of Rs. 2,84,990. The assessment was completed on 31st March, 1986 determining the net loss carried over at the same figure of Rs. 2,84,990 as shown by the assessed. The company was incorporated on 22nd Nov., 1982 with the object of acquiring, dealing and holding shares, stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, carrying on business of hire purchase and financing the industrial enterprises by way of lending and advancing money, etc. The authorised capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,000 with two lakhs equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The authorised capital is made up of Rs. 8,00,000 thro...

D. M. K. S. Maintenance Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)446

ORDERMANZOOR AHMED BAKSHI, J.M. :The appeal of the assessed for asst. yr. 1980-81 is directed against the order dt. 30th August, 1989, of CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi. The issue, inter alia, is relating to the loss on sale of silver amounting to Rs. 50,928.2. Original assessment, in this case, had been completed on 19th March, 1983. The loss on sale of silver bar, loss on sale of shares, loss on sale of car had been disallowed. The CIT(A) had also confirmed the disallowance. The Tribunal in ITA No. 561/Del/84, dt. 9th January, 1986, had remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.3. While making the fresh assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the loss of Rs. 50,928 on account of sale of silver on the ground that it was not understood as to why the silver bar had been purchased by the assessed at higher price when this was not the business of the assessed. According to the Assessing Officer, the alleged purchase and sale was to the same party and it was nothing but a speculation loss...

Gautam Ahuja Vs. M/S. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant booked a house with respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 in Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, which was being developed by respondent No. 1. He deposited an amount Rs. 3,99,172.50 as part price. It is alleged that the house which has been allotted to the complainant does not exist on the site. Consequently he filed a complaint for the refund of Rs. 3,99,172.50 with interest @ 18% p.a. and damages. 2. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have controverted the allegations of the complainant and have inter-alia pleaded that the house was to be delivered to the complainant by first of August 94, that the house was being constructed and he would be delivered possession of the same by that date subject to his payment of the balance amount. It is further pleaded that the site plan had been modified by the Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana and according to the modified plan the house number of the hous...