Delhi Court October 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 109 results (0.020 seconds)indrol Lubricants and Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT432TriDel
1. It is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector.Learned Counsel stated that the issue relates to a dispute regarding classification of their product which they have described as blended or compounded lubricating oil.2. They had submitted a fresh classification list, when the tariff changed in 1986, showing the classification under 2710.60 and the same was approved by the Assistant Collector and they had been clearing the goods accordingly.3. Subsequently, the department issued a show cause notice dated 19th July, 1988 alleging that they had misdeclared and misclassified the product.4. It was their contention that they had correctly described the product and rightly shown the classification as their product was being used for lubrication of refrigeration compressors and hence, sometimes described as 'refrigeration oil' or a speciality oil but its basic function was lubrication. In support of their contention, they had produced their own product literature as well as IS...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT565TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order dated 23-4-1993 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants imported 'endless felt' and 'endless synthetic sleeves' for Hemmer Continuous Decastising Machine (Textile Machine) as spares and claimed clearance of the said goods under sub-heading 5911.90 of CTA, 1975 and sub-heading 5909.00 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 vide Bill of Entry No. 10280, dated 31-10-1992 and Bill of Entry No. 10278, dated 31-10-1992. The Assistant Collector accepted the importers claim as regards the classification of synthetic sleeves but he held that 'endless felt' in question was classifiable under sub-heading 59.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and sub-heading 59.08 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985 on the grounds that 'endless felt' in question was more than 3 mm in thickness and was used in decastising machine to convey the fabric in addition to holding the fabric in hot humid condition. He arrived at the finding that sub-heading 59.10 ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Board
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT284TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 18-6-1991 passed by the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) Ahmedabad.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents entered into a contract with M/s. Usha Prestressed Concrete for the fabrication/manufacture of prestressed concrete poles. The contract was termed as 'job work contract' and it provided that the raw material like Cement, H.T. Steel Wire, Mild Steel and G.I. Wires were to be supplied by the Board. It also provided that the wages of unskilled labour were to be controlled by the Board and the quality control of the goods was to be ensured by the Board. The respondents were also prohibited from fabricating any poles for any other party in their factory premises. By his order dated 28-3-1990 the Assistant Collector held that in view of the fact that Gujarat Electricity Board had complete control over the manufacturing programme and production of prestressed concrete poles and contractors were merely job workers g...
Tag this Judgment!Talbros Automotive Components Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD312(Delhi)
1-4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.] 5. The next contention pertains to addition of Rs. 13, 25, 557 sustained on account of refund of Excise Duty. The facts in brief as mentioned by the learned AR are that the assesses received a sum of Rs. 13, 25, 557 towards refund of Excise Duty which was claimed to be non-taxable. The Assessing Officer found that the aforesaid amount had been reduced from godown charges and as such was not shown towards income. As per the contention of the assessee the amount was paid through running account; and no deduction was claimed in regard to the aforesaid amount so collected from the customers. Accordingly the same was not taxable. The contention was however rejected by the Assessee Officer as well as by the CIT(A) on the ground that as it formed part of the trading receipt the refund allowed on account of the same constituted income of the assessee under Section 41 (1) of the Act. In support reliance was placed on the ...
Tag this Judgment!inspecting Assistant Vs. Punj and Sons
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD281(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order dated 30-9-1986 passed by the CIT(A)-II, New Delhi whereby he has deleted the addition of Rs. 9,39,058 from the computed contract income allowing Rs. 9,00,000 towards house tax deduction, deleting Rs. 21,023 being addition out of subscription account and deleting addition of Rs. 20,000 out of sales promotion. The assessee is a private limited company. The assessment year involved is 1983-84, for which the previous year ended by 31-3-1983. The assessee is a contractor. It had entered into a contract with Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called 'DDA') under which it had agreed to provide and instal Sound Proof Foldable Partition at Indoor Stadium, Inderprastha Estate, New Delhi on the occasion of conducting games at ASIAD-82. It is a turn key project. The work was undertaken for a total consideration of Rs. 1,54,00,000. The break up of the lump sum price of Rs. 1,54,00,000 agreed upon was as under:(1) Execution of en...
Tag this Judgment!Mohinder Verma Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD373(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) dated 20-12-1989 for the assessment year 1981-82 for which the Valuation Date was 31-3-1981.2. The assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed return of wealth on 20-7-1981 disclosing a net wealth of Rs. 5,69,953. The assessment was completed under Section 16(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 on 31-3-1986. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee held unquoted equity shares of Continental Constructions (P.) Ltd. (for short CCL). The valuation of the said unquoted equity shares of CCL was referred to the Valuation Officer (for short VO) under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.The VO by his order dated 21-3-1986 under Section 16A(5) estimated the value of each equity share of CCL as on 30-12-1980 relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 at Rs. 239.58 on simple average yield basis.The VO while estimating the value of the shares of the CC...
Tag this Judgment!Metro Offset Printers Vs. Syndicate Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT388
S.D. Pandit, J.(1) This application is filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act contending therein that in view of Clause No. 35 of agreement between the parties the claims made in the suit will have to be referred to an arbitration and the present suit in the ordinary civil Court is not tenable in law.(2) Plaintiff has filed this suit to get a decree for Rs. 7,34,110.60p. against two defendants on the allegation that the invocation of the Bank guarantee No. 2/87 dated 20.3.1986 for Rs. 2,20,000 .00 by respondent No. 2 was illegal and not binding against him and to get back the suit amount from defendants 1 & 2 on account of the encashment of the said Bank guarantee and the amount of Rs. 5,10,000.00 is claimed by way of damages suffered by him by encashment of the said Bank guarantee. (3) The respondent No. 2 is relying on Clause No. 35 of the contract between the parties.The said Clause No. 35 reads as under: 'IF any dispute arises between the parties in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Safeway Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)171
ORDERG. D. AGRAWAL, A. M :This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XIV, New Delhi.2. The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under :'Learned AC as well as learned CIT(A) have erred on facts as well as law in making addition of Rs. 4 lakhs, i.e., profit on sale of D-200, Saket, which is earned by its owner Shri J. P. Bahl. The appellant simply carried out the construction on this property on contract basis and profit from this contract is duly disclosed by the appellant in its books of accounts.'3. At the time of hearing before us the learned counsel for the assessed argued at length. He submitted that Shri J. P. Bahl was the owner of the plot at D-200, Saket, New Delhi. The assessed carried on the construction of a flat on the above plot on behalf of Mr. Bahl. The flat was sold by Mr. Bahl and consideration was received by him. The purchaser had confirmed having purchased the flat from Mr. Bahl. Mr. Bahl sought the permission for sale of the flat f...
Tag this Judgment!Collr. of C. Excise Vs. Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT135TriDel
1. Respondents-assessees and respondents' counsel are absent. There is no request of adjournment made. We have heard Senior Departmental Representative, Shri T.R. Malik.2. Assessee imported plant and machinery, presented Bill of Entry on 16-5-1977 and warehoused the goods on the same day under Bond duly executed. Goods were cleared on payment of duty on 22-9-1980. In calculating the duty amount payable, rate of exchange prevailing on the date of clearance was adopted. This was apparently erroneous as according to the law applicable on the day of clearance rate of exchange prevailing on the day of filing the Bill of Entry should have been adopted. Show cause notice was duly issued by the Assistant Collector to show cause for levying differential amount of duty. No reply was received. The Assistant Collector passed an order confirming the demand made in the show cause notice. The assessee challenges the order before Collector (Appeals) who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. India Coated Cartons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT373TriDel
1. The issue involved in the instant case is the classification of the subject goods, namely, printed catch covers and printed pouches.2. The Assistant Collector after ususal adjudication proceedings classified the aforesaid subject goods under Heading 4818.13. Against that order of the Assistant Collector the appellants filed their appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who while setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector held that the subject goods are classifiable under Heading 4818.19. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.3. Arguing on behalf of the Revenue Shri Sachdeva, Ld. SDR submitted that the subject items are nothing but "flattened or folded cases or boxes" and as such they are Specific items which come under the domain of the Tariff sub-heading 4818.13. The meaning rendered to the word 'Cases' in it is nothing but bags and thus the same meaning has been rendered to the word pouches also. Thus the so-called catch covers and pouches do come within the description o...
Tag this Judgment!