Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)330; 1994(31)DRJ76
R.L. Gupta, J. (1) This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for grant of a declaration that they are the absolute and exclusive owners in equal shares of property on Plot No. M-281, (measuring about 400 sq.yards) Greater Kailash Part-11, New Delhi; properties bearing Nos-4110/4111 and 4041 to 4043, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. Plaintiffs are the sons of late Shri Kishan Chand Gupta while defendants I and 2 are the widow and daughter respectively of late Shri Kishan Chand Gupta. He died on 14th February,1994 leaving behind a duly executed will dated 26th October,1993. One of its attesting witness is defendant No. 1 herself. By means of the aforesaid will, Shri Kishan Chand Gupta bequeathed all his aforesaid three immovable properties, fully and absolutely, in favor of both the plaintiffs in equal shares. He had also left behind some debts and liabilities for being cleared and paid off by the plaintiffs. It is further averred that plaintiffs requested the defendants to ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT392TriDel
1. M/s U.K. Paints Industries, 19, DDA Commercial Complex, Kailash Colony Extension, New Delhi-110048 have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. U.K. Paints Industries had imported 576 drums in six containers said to contain 109.44 metric tonnes Soyabean Oil Industrial Grade, valued at Rs. 21,57,404 CIF and the bill of entry vide No. 8810, dated 29th July, 19... was filed for the clearance of the said drums. Along with the bill of entry, the importers had submitted copies of Invoice No. OL 1909 dated 30th June, 1992 of suppliers M/s. Kuok Oils and Grains Pvt. Ltd., Singapore and also a certificate of origin issued by M/s. Pasir Gudang Edible Oils certifying that 576 drums (109.44 M.T.) Soyabean Oil Industrial Grade were manufactured in Malaysia by M/s. Pasir Gudang Edible Oils, SDN BHD, Malaysia. M/s. U.K. Paints Industries had also attached a declaration stating that invoice No. OL 1909 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD507(Delhi)
1. The appeal filed by the department and cross-objection filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 19-4-1989 for assessment year 1985-86 are taken together for the sake of convenience.2. Shri D.D. Goyal represented the department and Shri Ashok Malik, CA appeared on behalf of the assessee.3. We would take up the appeal of the department first. The sole contention raised in this appeal pertains to acceptance of assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an exporter who claimed deduction of Rs. 10,38,359 on the export turnover made in the assessment year 1985-86.The assessee's accounting period ended on 31-12-1984. On scrutiny of the assessee's claim in respect of deduction under Section 80HHC, it was found that on 1-12-1983 the assessee company entered into agreement with M/s. Mahajan International - its sister concern. As per the terms of the contract the goods expo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT426TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed by the Supplier and Importer respectively with reference to common impugned order involving common issues. Therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The First appellant Shri Aamir H. Nakhoda is the proprietor of M/s.Aamir Universal Trading Centre carrying on business as Importer and Exporter in Singapore. The second appellant is the sole proprietor of M/s. Polyvinyl Industrial Corporation, New Delhi. This unit is registered as small scale unit engaged in the reprocessing and manufacturing of PVC Granules out of the damage wasted PVC material. On 31-12-1990, the second appellant filed a Bill of Entry through their authorised Clearing Agent, M/s. Loknath Shipping & Clearing Agency for clearance of the goods declared as 118.10 M/T high density Polyethylene Resin in the Bill of Entry/Invoice. Since the grade was not mentioned and the Clearing Agent did not produce original documents at the time of filing the B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)LC365Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals arise out of the order dated 27-12-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad confirming a duty demand of Rs. 11,44,588/- on decorative laminated top units (referred to as DLTUs in short) alleged to have been manufactured and cleared by the first appellant company and a demand of Rs. 10,28,914/- on steel furniture such as Drawer units, lock units, tool cabinets etc. manufactured and cleared by the appellant company without payment of Excise duty and imposing penalties of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs on the first and second appellant respectively.2. The Adjudicating authority has rejected the contention of the appellants that they were not clearing fully manufactured units but only purchasing decorative laminated top units from M/s. Siddharth Engineering Works and reselling them with adjustment on steel frames and has further rejected the contention that the steel furniture was purchased from another manufacturer namely M/s. Sam Engg. Works on the ground th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)51ITD582(Delhi)
1. The present appeal filed by the department is with reference to the provision of tax that should have been deducted from the payment of hire charges of ship that is contained in Section 195(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The objection of the department in the present appeal is on the conclusion by the CIT(A) that the hire charges is not liable to be taxed in India because of the provisions of Double Taxation Agreement between India & UK (DTA).2. The dispute started with the assessee-company applying to the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ACIT) for the issuing of 'No Objection Certificate' that was required by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for allowing any remittance out of India. The respondent company vide its letter dated 10-3-1993 applied for the above certificate for the remittance of US Dollars 104642.10 to M/s. Drake Maritime S.A.-London (DM) which covered the hire charges of a ship (H.V.Pelican). The respondent had stated that Oil & Natural Gas C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)(74)ELT666TriDel
1. Feeling aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No. Cal-Cus-284/85, dated 15-2-1985 (issued on 9-4-1985), passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, M/s. Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons, Calcutta, have filed the present appeal with the Tribunal which was received on 9-7-1985, and listed as C/1159/85-B.2. The appellants had imported, during 1984, a Razor Blade Coater machine, and sought its classification under Heading No. 84.17(1) of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'); the alternative classification was suggested as under Heading No. 84.59(2) of the Tariff, read with SI. No. 109 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 118/80-Cus. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Airport), Calcutta ordered classification of the machine under Heading No. 84.59(1) of the Tariff, without benefit of the exemption Notification No. 118/80-Cus. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta agreed with the findings of the Asstt. Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1995)52ITD83(Delhi)
1. The second batch of appeals consisting of ITA Nos. 6663, 6664, 6672, 6673, 6675, 6685 and 6689 (Del.) of 1989 were first heard on 8-9-1994 partly and they were completed hearing on 15-9-1994. The first batch of appeals consisting of ITA Nos. 6621, 6629 & 6632 (Del.) of 1989 were heard fully on 15-9-1994. Since the point involved is common in both these batches of appeals they are disposed of by a common order.2. These are assessees' appeals relating to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and they all arise out of similar but separate orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Dehradun, dated 12-7-1989.The assessees are all foreign technicians engaged by a foreign company M/s Atwood Oceanics International ('AOI' for short). The AOI entered into a contract of operation services and maintenance with regard to two rigs operating offshore in the territorial waters of India with Oil and Natural Gas Commission. With a view to fulfil its contractual obligations AOI had entered i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1994IVAD(Delhi)221; 1994(31)DRJ233; [1995]213ITR260(Delhi); 1994RLR543
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) In Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., : [1985]1SCR216 the Supreme Court tells us that a High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually. However, Mr.P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate tells me that no person, even necessary, can be imp leaded as a party to a writ petition for the reason that Order I Rule 1.0 of the Code of Civil procedure is not applicable to any proceeding under Article 226. And, in support he relies not only upon section 141 of the Code of Civil procedure but also upon two judgments namely. Rev. Fr. Antony Nimppal v. State. : AIR1980Ker199 and State of Kerala v. C.U. Scaria : AIR1994Ker35 . (2) Before the year 1976 there was a difference of opinion as to whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)LC532Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay dated 18th August, 1988.2. The appellants have sent a letter dated September 5,1994 enclosing as the written submissions and requesting that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence.3. Accordingly, we have gone through the appeal memorandum and the written submissions and allow the DR to make his submissions.4. The learned DR submitted that in this case the appellants were initially entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 in respect of the items falling under TI 68.5. Subsequently, the notification was amended and the classification of the input 'Phenol' falling under Tariff Item 68 earlier was changed to Tariff Item 14 AAA.6. The appellants said in the meanwhile they had taken credit in respect of the quantity received as inputs but they utilised that quantity for payment of duty on their final product subsequent to the date of the amendment namely 16/17th March, 1985.7. A...
Tag this Judgment!