Delhi Court June 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.
Jaypee Rewa Cement Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-28-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT91TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 28-11-1992 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Raipur. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the crushing of limestone for use in civil construction works. On the grounds that crushed limestone is the commodity specified under Heading 2505 of the Central Excise Tariff the Department was of the view that the appellants had been engaged in the activity of manufacturing crushed limestone without obtaining Central Excise Licence and without payment of Central Excise duty. The appellants were, therefore, served with a Show Cause Notice dated 22/25-5-1992 alleging that during the period November, 1988 to 6-12-1991, they had manufactured 1,34,117.11 MT crushed limestone and cleared it without discharging duty liability to the tune of Rs. 17,20,467.32. The appellants denied the allegations in the Show Cause Notice on the grounds that in several decisions of the Tribunal and the High Courts the activity o...
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1994
Reported in: (1994)50TTJ(Del)504
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A. M. :These penalty appeals directed against separate orders passed by the CIT(A) were heard together and inasmuch as they involve a common issue the same are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. The relevant facts in all these appeals revolve around asst. yr. 1983-84 when an addition of Rs. 1,76,551 came to be made on account of interest. In the said assessment year the assessed, which is a co-operative society, its main purpose being to develop industrial sites and provide other infrastructure for the development of an industrial estate for its members, filed a return on 27th July, 1983 showing a loss of Rs. 72,817. In its accounts it had shown interest income to the tune of Rs. 32,228. The other relevant fact in this case is that every member of the said co-operative society was to pay entrance fees of Rs. 100 and also to subscribe to atleast one share of the face value of Rs. 1,000. The assessed had also received from its members a sum of Rs. 62,09,279...
V.S.T. Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-26-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT49TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order No. 172/85 dated 20-11-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Learned Counsel stated that appellants are manufacturer of cigarettes. During the relevant period, the effective Excise Duty was required to be calculated based on the maximum price declared on each package of cigarettes (exclusive of local taxes) only (vide Notification No. 211/83, dated 4-8-1983).3. Anticipating a change in rate of duty in the Budget for 1984, the appellants were confronted with the problem that it normally takes the cigarette industry 10 to 20 days after the Union Budget to finalise its new prices of cigarettes upon the change in the rates of duties. This would mean that the cigarette manufacturer would not be in a position to decide what prices would have to be declared on each package of cigarettes manufactured on or after 29-2-1984 (i.e. the date of presentation before Parliament of the Union Budget for 1984) until such time as the pr...
Veer Metals Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1994
Reported in: (1995)51TTJ(Del)132
ORDERN.D. RAGHAVAN, J.M. :This is an appeal of the assessed challenging the order dt. 22nd July, 1993 of the CIT(A) as arbitrary, misconceived, illegal and erroneous on facts and in law.2.1 The relevant facts of the case are briefly these : The assessed is a partnership constituted of Smt. Som Lata Jain and Shri Harsh Jain with 50% share each. The assessed is engaged in manufacture and sale of copper wire. The assessed is a quota-holder for obtaining copper from M.M.T.C. and H.C.L. which in turn is got converted into rods out of which the assessed manufactures copper wires of the required sizes. The assessed is maintaining cash book, ledger, purchases and sales invoices as also excise register for finished goods as prescribed by the excise authorities. The Assessing Officer noted squired up cash credits in the name of the following parties in the books of accounts of the assessed :(i) A.K. Agarwal : Rs. 55,000(ii) S.K. Agarwal : Rs. 55,000(iii) A.K. Julka : 25,000(iv) Roshan Lal (50,00...
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT201TriDel
1. The above application arises out of the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming the differential duty demand raised in the show cause notice dated 31-3-1993 for Rs. 1,38,99,178.64 on properzi rods cleared by the applicants during the period from 1-3-1988 to 19-5-1988 on the ground that, in terms of Note l(a) to Chapter 76 of the CETA, 1985, they are classifiable as aluminium wires under Heading 7605 and not as wire rods, being in coil form. In addition a penalty of Rs. 35 lakhs has been imposed.2. Shri V. Sridharan learned Counsel submits that the applicants manufacture wire rods by properzi process i.e. the process of continuous casting and rolling and the product is commercially known and bought and sold as wire rods only. The Finance Bill, 1988 introduced on 1-3-1988 contained provisions seeking to amend the entire Chapter 76 of the CETA so as to align it with HSN. The tariff rate of duty proposed in the Finance Bill for all Items of Chapter 76 was 50% ad ...
Manko Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT375TriDel
1. M/s. Manko Industries have filed this appeal against order in appeal dated 2-12-1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh upholding the order in original dated 29-8-1993 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Jalandhar holding them to be ineligible for the benefit of small scale industry exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86 for washers manufactured and cleared by them. The benefit under the said exemption was denied to them on the ground that the Registration Certificate issued to them by the Directorate of Industries, Punjab mentioned only G.M. Bushes. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this finding of the Assistant Collector observing that the conditions laid down under Para 4 of the Notification in question that the exemption contained therein shall be applicable to the unit registered with the Directorate of Industries obviously meant that the unit as well as the product were to be indicated in the SSI Certificate. Their registration f...
New India Detergent (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT360TriDel
1. This is an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for rectification of the error apparent on record in Tribunal's Final Order No. 124/93-C, dated 19-4-1993 in which it was held that Spent Sulphuric Acid is correctly classifiable under Heading No. 38.23 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. Appearing on behalf of the applicants, Shri Naveen Mullick, Learned Advocate, stated that the appellants had challenged the classification of Spent Sulphuric Acid under Heading 28.07. He submitted that in the appeal filed before the Tribunal the applicants had submitted that the demand confirmed by the lower authority on the clearances of Spent Sulphuric Acid under Heading No. 28.07 was wrong. He added that in the appeal filed before the Tribunal the applicants had also stated that they had effected the clearances of Spent Sulphuric Acid at nil rate of duty after informing the Department and as such they were not liable to penalty. He submit...
Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT193TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals) dated 29-11-1985.2. The appellants have sent a letter dated 25th May, 1994 expressing their inability to appear and requesting that the written submissions enclosed with their letter dated 4-5-1994 may be taken into consideration.3. Accordingly, we have perused the above submissions and heard the learned Departmental Representative.4. In the written submissions, the appellants have sought leave to withdraw their prayer with reference to the question of leviability of Cess on the items in question. (i) Whether Cess was payable on Stitching Twine, Sacking Packsheet and Hessian Packsheet captively used for stitching/packing of the jute goods exported under bond during the period June, 1984 to 14-10-1984. (ii) The classification and rate of duty applicable to Sacking Bags and the above articles.6. Learned D.R. has stated that the appellants have claimed exemption from Cess on the basis of Central Excise Notifications issued und...
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Taikisha Ltd. (Taikisha Limited ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1994
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)594
ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :These cross appeals, one by the assessed and one by the Revenue for asst. yr. 1986-87 directed against order dt. 4th Aug., 1989, of the CIT(A) XVI, New Delhi, are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. First, we take up the appeal of the assessed. assessed-company is a non-resident Japanese concern. It had entered into an agreement with M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) on 28th June, 1985, for the supply of the machinery and for fabricating the paint line. As per the agreement, it received a sum of Rs. 7,85,998 as supervision fee during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1986-87. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as fee for technical services as in earlier years. assesseds claim that supervision fee constituted the business income of the assessed and not fee for the technical services within the meaning of S. 9(i)(vii) of the Act was rejected. CIT(A) also followed his earlier order in rejecting the claim of the assessed. Shri Sharma, the learned cou...
Sparr Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1994
Reported in: (1994)(73)ELT53TriDel
1. The classification of water well drilling rigs manufactured by the appellants is the issue for consideration in this appeal - according to the Department the item merits classification under Heading 8705.00 which covers "special purpose motor vehicles other than those principally designed for the transport of persons or goods", while the appellants claim classification under Heading 84.30 which covers "other moving, grading, levelling, scrapping, excavating...extracting or boring machinery for earth, minerals or ores ..".2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of 6 models of water well drilling rigs known as : All these models are identical in terms of manufacturing process and only vary in terms of capacity and size. A hydraulic power pack provides hydraulic power to all the drilling and control functions. The mounting of the compressor and the drill pack could be done either on the skid or the truck chassis or the trailer or the crawler depending upon the need of the cus...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »