Delhi Court March 1994 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Eagle Flask (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT765TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether articles of plastic falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff when not exclusively manufactured out of raw materials falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) could be deemed as eligible for exemption from the Central Excise duty under Notification No. 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982.2. We have heard Shri R.J. Majra, ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants. He submitted that the lower authorities have held that the appellants' product was not eligible for exemption under Notification No 182/82-C.E., dated 11-5-1982 on the grounds that the exemption under the said notification was admissible only in respect of articles of plastic manufactured exclusively from materials falling under Tariff Item 15A(1) and not when they are made out of duty-paid materials falling both under Tariff Items 15A(1) and 15A(3)....
Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1069TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the Order-in-Appeal dated 30-7-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad.2. The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the product 'Hajmola Candy' manufactured by the appellants is classifiable under subheading 3003.30 as medicaments as claimed by the appellants or under subheading 1704.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as per the revenue.3. The appellants filed the classification for Hajmola Candy under subheading No. 3003.30 and claimed benefit of exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 32/89, dated 1-3-1989. The Assistant Collector classified the product under sub-heading No. 1704.90 as sugar confectionary and confirmed the demand accordingly. He observed that Hajmola Candy contained approximately 75% sugar and the rest of the contents were used only to develop taste and the method of preparation was also not mentioned in any book on Ayurveda. While upholding the order passed by the Assistant Col...
Krishna District Milk Producers Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)(71)ELT1026TriDel
1. Since the issue involved is common in these cases, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute relates to classification of the fruit drink viz.Orange, Mango, Pineapple and Guava with the brand name of 'VOL fruit and PINAP' in Appeal Nos. 4678/91-D and 5155/91-D and 'MAAZA MANGO' - A Mango Pulp based drink - in the remaining appeals. The point to be considered in these appeals is whether these products are to be classified under Heading 2001.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the appellants or to be classified under Heading 2202.90 of Central Excise Tariff, as held by the Department. The relevant tariff Headings 20.01 and 22.02 are reproduced as under -"22.02 Natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters,containing added sugar or 3. None appeared for the appellants - M/s. Krishna Distt. Milk Producers Union in Appeal Nos. 4678/91 and 5155/91-D at the time of hearing. However, we find that there was a request fro...
indofil Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994(73)ELT9(Del)
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. The petitioner has sought several reliefs, mainly challenging the validity of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules for short). The petitioner also sought the quashing of certain orders made by the respondents under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner manufactures a commodity called Plexol-150 which is an oil editive used extensively in the petroleum industry as pour-point represent and also as a de-waxing aid in solvent de-waxing process. In the process of manufacturing this commodity (referred hereafter as the end product), there is an intermediate stage at which a resin type commodity emerges which is the subject-matter of this writ petition. For the sake of convenience this commodity or article may be referred as in-process material, though according to the petitioner this in-process material has no independent identity and it is not marketable and thereforee, it is not 'g...
N.S. Tewana Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)593; 54(1994)DLT578; 1994(29)DRJ258
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) The present petition has been filed to quash the Notification No. S.O. 813(E) dt. December 2, 1991, and Notification No. S.O. 814(E) of the same date as well as for quashing the communication dated December 3, 1991, repatriating the petitioner to his home State and for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to function as Chairman of Central Pollution Control Board. (2) The petitioner was working in the field of Environment since March, 1983, when he was appointed as Member Secretary to the State Pollution Control Board, Punjab. It is further stated in the petition that since that time the petitioner was working in the field of Environment and was being identified as one of the top Environmentalist in the country. He is also known at international level in the field of Environment and has distinction of under taking special assignment of World Health Organisation in Sri Lanka for planning the environmental Pollution Control measures to be adopte...
industrial Development Bank of India Vs. Surekha Coated Tables and She ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)229; [1996]85CompCas594(Delhi); 1994(29)DRJ90
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) Company Petition 3 of 1991 was filed on 7th January 1991 seeking winding up of lie respondent company on the ground that the Company was unable to pay its debts. The petition was admitted to hearing: citation was directed to he published in newspapers and the Provisional Liquidator was appointed in terms of orders made by this Court on 30th April 1993. On 25th January 1994 the appeal filed by the Company against the order dated 30th April 1993 was dismissed by a Division Bench. The operative portion of the order dated 25th January 1994 reads as under:- 'ON consideration of the matter we find no ground to interfere. However. we leave the appellant to move the learned single Judge for appropriate orders in view of the supervening facts which have come into being during the pendency of this appeal.'(2) Now this application leas been filed by the Company praying that this Court may he pleased to:- 'A)Recall/modify the order dated 30.4.93. or in the alternative. b) All...
Department of Customs Vs. Eastern Road Carriers
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)105; 1994(29)DRJ57
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Department of Customs has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (tor short 'the Code') with a prayer that the order dated 23.2.1994 passed by Shri R.K. Sharma, ACMM. New Delhi be set aside and the petitioner be permitted to dispose of the 'CloseUp' tooth paste in accordance with the prescribed rules.(2) Before discussing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parlies, it would be necessary to give the brief facts leading to the filing of this petition. On 18.12.1993, Officers of the Customs (Preventive), Delhi recovered and seized smuggled ball-bearings worth Rs.40,95,600.00 from two trucks bearing No. DIG-4706 and DL-1L-A 3252. These were concealed under 450 boxes of Close Up toothpaste. The drivers of the two trucks besides other persons including Pradip Goel were examined under section 108 of the Customs Act. The seizure of the articles including the Close Up packings was made under the reasonable belief that they wer...
Surender Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: 1994IIAD(Delhi)116; 1994(29)DRJ65
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Surender Kumar has filed this application for bail for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). (2) Briefly stated the prosecution story has been that on 6.6.1991, Si A as Mohammed while accompanied by other police officials was present near Dda Quarters, H Block in connection with a case and at about5.15p.m.,whenhereceivedasecret information that one person would becoming with some drugs at about 7.15p.m. and could be apprehended. Raiding party was accordingly organized by the Sub Inspector in which, one A. Ahmed was joined from the public besides police officials. The petitioner was apprehended a t the pointing out of the informer and the petitioner was informed about information available with the police officials and that he was informed that if he wanted he could be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. This offer was, however, declined by the petiti...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Reliance International Corporation P. L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: [1995]211ITR666(Delhi)
D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. The Revenue seeks to have the following question, stated to be a question of law, referred to this court for its opinion :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi, was correct in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and confirming the directions to give effect to the application under Section 154 moved by the assessed and whether there has been any mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified ?'2. The assessed is a private limited company. For the assessment year 1978-79 (accounting year ending May 31, 1977), the assessed filed its return of income on June 30, 1978, disclosing an income of Rs. 96,280. Assessment was completed by the Income-tax Officer assessing the income at Rs. 2,93,339. He brought to tax an amount of Rs. 1,91,718 under the head 'Capital gains'. It so happened that the assessed on June 7, 1976, purchased two flats bearing Nos. 204 an...
Cosmo Films Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-1994
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)54
ORDERA. KALYANASUNDHARAM, A. M. :The assessed limited company has filed this appeal and has raised the following grounds :'1A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance under s. 40A(5) at Rs. 17,840.B. The learned CIT(A) erred in taking the perquisite value of rent free accommodation given to General Manager for the purpose of s. 40A(5), instead taking the rent paid.2A. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance under s. 43B of Rs. 7,33,742.B. The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing under s. 43B items of MST Rs. 5,51,115 and CST of Rs. 1,60,688 which were not debited to P&L; account.C. The learned CIT(A) erred in treating deferred sales-tax of MST of Rs. 5,51,115 and CST of Rs. 1,60,688 as covered under s. 43B.D. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of assessed that CBDT Circular No. 496 (F. No. 201/34/86-ITA dt. 25th Sept., 1987), is binding wherein it is held that deferred sales-tax credit has t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »