Delhi Court June 1994 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1994 Page 1 of about 55 results (0.023 seconds)Tata Unisys Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT96TriDel
1. M/s. Tata Unisys Ltd. have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 11-3-1993, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of computer systems, falling under Heading No. 8471.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). They used to enter into contracts with their customers for supply of hardware, software and support requirements, making the computer configuration, as per requirements of their customers. For excise purposes they did not include the value of software to arrive at the assessable value of the computer system, and paid central excise duty only on that part of the value which they ascribed to the hardware. In the show-cause notice dt. 2-8-1991 it was alleged that the value of the software was includible for the purposes of arriving at the duty liability on the computer system. It was observed therein that their software ...
Tag this Judgment!Udaipur Phosphates and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT906TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants M/s.Udaipur Phosphates & Fertilizers Ltd., Khemli, Udaipur, are engaged in the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid Oleum etc. falling under Chapter Heading No. 2807 of CET, 1985. Two Demand-cum-Show Cause Notices were issued to them to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs. 1,04,514 be not recovered from them on the ground that they did not pay Central Excise duty on the intermediate product, namely, Sulphuric Acid used in their final product Oleum, which was cleared and removed without payment of duty to KFTZ Kandla and 100% export oriented units during the period from April 1991 to September, 1991 and October, 1991 to November, 1991. The appellants contested the Show Cause Notices inter alia on the ground that the subject intermediate product, namely, Sulphuric Acid is not an excisable goods....
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Pashwara Paper (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)LC102Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s.Pashwara Paper (P) Ltd. are the manufacturers of paper and paper board, that is to say, Straw Board falling under Heading 4807.92 of GET. They submitted the Classification List in respect of the subject goods effective from 1-4-1986 claiming benefit in terms of Notification No.175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as amended by Notification No. 216/86, dated 2-4-1986 read with Notification No. 138/86, dated 1-3-1986. During the period from 1-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 the respondents cleared a certain quantity of the subject goods without payment of duty by availing full exemption from payment of excise duty in terms of clause (a) of para 1 of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986, as amended. However, on 24-4-1986, Notification No. 260/86 was issued inserting the following clause in Proviso to Notification No. 13...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Communication Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT673TriDel
1. The appellants herein imported a parcel from M/s. Pace Electronics Ltd. Tokyo, Japan through Foreign Post Office, Jaipur which was presented by postal authorities for examination on 16-11-1989. The importer filed papers for clearance of the same vide letter dated 4-12-1989, enclosing therewith invoice, post parcel receipt, OGL declaration, declaration under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1968, etc. A detailed examination of the parcel was carried out and it was found to contain 50 (fifty) sub-assembled sets (hand held transreceivers) for vehicles communication system; whereas the invoice showed the description of goods as "Chassis for LM 3165P VHF/FM, hand held transreceivers". The items imported were covered by Item 149 of Appendix 28 of Import Export Policy 1988-91 for which the importer was required to produce a specific import licence from Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and they had not produced such import licence.Therefore, it appeared that the importer had ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Multilayers Composite (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT362TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s.Multilayers Composite (P) Ltd. are the manufacturers of Multilayer Plastic films, Miscellaneous Plastic Scrap, Plastic Zipper Bag, Plastic Scrap and Plastic films printed with motifs. The dispute in the instant case relates to the classification of Plastic Films printed with motifs. It is the case of the Revenue that the Respondents have filed their classification list effective from 1-1-1992 inter alia classifying the disputed goods, namely Plastic Films printed with motifs under Chapter 4901.90 for approval. On receipt of the same a Show Cause Notice dated 18-2-1992 was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the subject goods be not classified under sub-heading 3920.32 on the ground that they are manufacturing multilayer plastic films out of Polyethylene granules; that these films ar...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Printing Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT397TriDel
1. M/s. Shri Ram Printing Mills of Amritsar have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals).The Collector (Appeals) had held :- "I have carefully considered the facts on record. In this case the goods in question are not shown to the satisfaction of proper officer to have been lost by natural causes or by avoidable accident as enjoined under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants have failed to substantiate as to why there was a delay in filing FIR and whether or not the deptt. was intimated about the theft within specified time limit of 48 hours. It is for them to substantiate as to what security steps had been taken by them to prevent such an incidence and how the theft became unavoidable for them despite security measures. The Asstt. Collector has rightly rejected the refund claim. I find no reason to interfere with the orders appealed against.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a r...
Tag this Judgment!Hyundai Heavy Ind. Co. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)51ITD34(Delhi)
1. All these appeals are directed against the identically worded orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The common facts in all these appeals are that the appellants are employees of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HHI) a non-resident company incorporated in the Republic of Korea.During the relevant previous year the appellants rendered services in India in connection with the execution of certain contracts between HHI and ONGC.3. Returns of income were filed showing NIL income by HHI in its capacity as representative assessee and acting as an agent on behalf of its non-resident employees viz., the present appellants. In the said returns salary pertaining to the period during which services were rendered in India, was claimed as exempt from tax in the light of the agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of India and the Government of Republic of Korea. The said claim came ...
Tag this Judgment!Modipon Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Iac V. Modipon Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)477
ORDERN. S. CHOPRA, A.M. :The assessed as also the Revenue is in appeal against order dt. 28th December, 1987, of the learned CIT(A). Both these appeals are consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. Taking up assessed's appeal first (No. 1134/Del/88) the first ground of appeals is general.3. Ground Nos. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 relate to disallowance of expenditure on maintenance of staff transit houses. The assessed is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of polyesters filament yarn and Chemicals. It has two transit houses; one at Amrita Shergil Marg and the other in Maharani Bagh which are also used by its managing director, namely, Mr. M. K. Modi and Mr. K. K. Modi. The assessed disputed the basis of the addition made by the Assessing Officer and took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer that the managing directors are making exclusive use of these premises. The learned authorised repres...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Excise Vs. Century Steel Balls (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT173TriDel
1. The above appeals arise out of order dated 13-3-1986 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Baroda extending the benefit of Notification No. 234/82, dated 1-11-1982 to Steel Balls manufactured by the respondents herein and cleared for use as Cycle parts. The respondents had filed the requisite declaration in terms of Notification No. 77/83, dated 1-3-1983 and on crossing the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs stipulated therein, cleared the goods without obtaining the Central Excise licence and without following the Central Excise Procedure. The Superintendent of Central Excise issued Show Cause Notice dated 30-8-1984 proposing to recover duty of Rs. 3,09,499.40 for clearance during the period April, 1983 to March, 1984 and Show Cause Notice dated 11-4-1985 seeking to recover duty of Rs. 4,70,642.70 for clearance during the period April, 1984 to March, 1985.The Assistant Collector vacated the Show Cause Notice on ...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Forgings (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT302TriDel
1. These are three appeals filed by the appellants which are interlinked and connected and, therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of forge, iron and steel products. They manufacture products namely, crank-shafts, rings, discs, connected rod, pinion, shafts, gear etc. The dispute is in respect of classification of the above products. The appellants claimed that these items were classifiable under Item 26AA, sub Item(i-a) of the first schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. But according to Deptt. that these items were classifiable under Item 68 with effect from 1-3-1975 since Item 68 was introduced into the Tariff Schedule. In the order dated 25/26-7-1985 passed by the Asstt. Collector it was held by him that the goods would be classifiable under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. Subsequently, on that basis the classification lists were approved by him on 15-10-1985. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!