Delhi Court October 1995 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.
Dipak Vegetable Oil Industries Vs. Collector of C. Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT144TriDel
1. In both the appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law. 2. The Collector (Appeals) has allowed the Revenue's appeal filed under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector had considered the refund claim filed by the appellants and allowed the same on the ground that they were eligible for partial exemption from payment of duty on excisable vegetable products manufactured by them in terms of Notification No. 115/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as they had manufactured the vegetable product from indigenous cotton oil and specified minor oils. Prior to 1-3-1986 Notification 99/84-C.E. was in force which was superseded by Notification No.115/86-CE. The appellants had manufactured certain quantity of vegetable product prior to 1-3-1986, but had cleared the same after the enforcement of Notification No. 115/86-C.E. They cleared that quantity of payment on full rate of duty and had subseq...
Pressure Cookers and Appliances Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT124TriDel
1. Appeal Nos. E. 1044/84-A and 1045/84-A are filed by the assessee and Appeal No. E. 2513/87-A is filed by the Department. They will be referred as 1st, 2nd and 3rd appeal.2. Assessee is a manufacturer of pressure cookers. They are packed in card board cartons. In some cases, and according to assessee in case of up-country dealers, these card board cartons are packed in wooden crates. According to the assessee the cost of card board cartons is included in the price buy the cost of wooden crates is not. In regard to 1981, price-lists were submitted for approval. While approving the price-lists the authority held that cost of secondary packing, that is, wooden crates is liable to be included in the assessable value.Subsequently, a demand was made on the basis of this finding. These two orders were challenged before the Collector (Appeals) by the assessee and the appeals were dismissed. The first two of the appeals before us are directed against the order passed by the Collector (Appeal...
Ester Industries Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT260TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Central Excise. In the impugned order, the learned Collector had held : "13. Further, the party have submitted that they have been submitting all the requisite information in the RT-12 returns. But on going through the same and all the concerned Range records, I find that the RT-12 returns for the relevant period have been waiting finalisation but for the information in respect of the insurance and freight. Party's defence, inter alia, is that the demand is time barred for the reason that the RT-12 and the Gate Passes have been scrutinised by the Department and that in the gate passes mention of destination of the goods at their Depot at NOIDA has been made. They, therefore, have tried to say that the Department was aware of the system of transport and sales of the goods from NOIDA and nothing has been concealed. It is an admitted fact that the party had made misdeclaration in part-I price list ...
Guru Nanak Refrigeration Corpn. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)LC125Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Guru Nanak Refrigeration have filed this captioned appeal being aggrieved by the order of Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held : "I observe that the Assistant Collector in this case had based his order mainly on the fact that wholesale cash price could not be normally less than the cost of manufacture. I also observe that the appellants have not denied that in the instant case the price declared by them was less than the cost of manufacture and have tried only to plead that old Section 4 placed no bar on having a wholesale cash price lesser than the cost of manufacture and have cited Supreme Court Judgment in Voltas case in support of their contention that the wholesale cash price at which the goods were actually sold could only be considered as the assessable value. I consider that the arguments advanced by the appellants are fallacious. Neither the language of old Section 4 nor the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in Voltas case implies that ...
Gujarat State Fertilizers Vs. Coll. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT311TriDel
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal dated 10-1-1989, passed by the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi. By this order, he has observed that the Assistant Collector had rightly held that the assessee had been declared a refinery in relation to raw naphtha only and that they had not specified the goods in which "Methane" was to be utilised, as also about such goods having been specified in the Schedule to Notification No. 276/67-C.E. Thus, the benefit of this Notification has been denied in respect of the goods, Methane, captively consumed in the manufacture of the goods covered in the Schedule appended to the Notification. The appellants submitted that they have two plants for production of 'Anhydrous Ammonia' a chemical fertilizer. They have three plants A-I, A-II, A-III set up and established by the Heavy Water Plant of the Department of Atomic Energy within their battery limits for the production of synthesis Gas.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are served with a s...
Phoenix Overseas Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD274(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1988-89 is directed against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT in short) holding assessment order dated July 6, 1989 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act. In the above assessment order, the Assessing Officer had allowed deduction of Rs. 20, 98, 332 under Section 32AB for investment in purchase of machinery installed by the assessee in its factory at A-99, Noida. The deduction was held by the learned CIT to be wrongly allowed in the following circumstances.2. The assessee-company in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1988-89 carried on business of manufacture and export of leather and electronic goods at three units. The position of profit/loss of each unit was as under: -1. Factory at A-99, Noida. a (-) 14,89,936 loss The learned CIT on consideration of relevant provisions of Section 32AB held that deduction under the said section was permissible only ...
N.A.N. Woollen Mills Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: (1996)56ITD268(Delhi)
1. Appellant is a registered firm. Its appeal relating to assessment year 1985-86 is directed against the order dated 18-9-1990 of CIT (A), Karnal. The issue involved is as to whether Assessing Officer was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 147(B) and in disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 80-1 on the ground that the assessee had not filed the report of the auditors in Form No.1OCCB along with the return of income. In this case original assessment had been completed on 31st January, 1986 at an income of Rs. 5, 09, 786. This assessment was modified under Section 154 to Rs. 4, 42, 000 vide order dated 7-3-1986. On the basis of the internal audit objection, Assessing Officer initiated proceedings against the assessee on the ground that deduction under Section 80-Iamounting to Rs. 61, 3 79 had been wrongly allowed to the assessee. Besides a trading loss amounting to Rs. 51, 581 was also considered to have wrongly been allowed to the assessee. In pursuance to...
M.L. Singhal Vs. Pradeep Mathur and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Delhi261; ILR1996Delhi106
Usha Mehra, J. (1) It is most unfortunate that the life of plaintiff's wife, Smt. Gayatri Devi had been snatched by the cruel hands, but the question for determination is whose hands were those? Were those of a doctor, attending upon her or of the Supernatural power controlling this universe? If the answer is that those hands were of a doctor then we have to keep in mind that to err is human though all errors are not pardonable nor all errors are deliberate and intentional. ft is only when the error arose out of sheer negligence and carelessness or callous treatment of the patient by the doctor or because of the act of the hospital authority, the aggrieved party would be entitled to claim compensation/damage for having lost the near and dear one. It will thus be called causing death at the cruel hands of that human being the so called doctor. (2) Smt. Gayatri Devi wife .of the plaintiff Sh. M. L. Singhal, died on 21st August, 1978. Plaintiff filed the suit c(3) To appreciate the grieva...
Zenith Steel Pipes and Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1995
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT886TriDel
1. The captioned appeal has been filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The Collector, Custom (Appeals) had held : "The Appellants in their letter written submissions have reiterated what was stated in the appeal memorandum. In this, they have given out the gist of all the relevant High Court and CEGAT's orders. The appellants in support of their contention have stated that Kandla Custom House had released a similar consignment imported from the same supplier at unit price of DM 735/- PMT as per invoice dated. 31-3-1985. The appellants advocate in his letter dated 31-7-1985 has stated that the Custom House had released a similar consignment imported by the appellants under Duty Free Scheme after accepting declared price of DM 736.36 PMT as per ADF No. 1168/26-7-1985. But this does not confirm alleged acceptance of value. They have not produced the relevant invoice. The advocate has further stated that there was difference in the composi...
American Spring and Pressing Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT567TriDel
1. These are cross appeals. Appeal No. E/1065/86-D is by the assessee M/s. American Spring & Pressing Works Ltd. and Appeal No. E/2807/86-D by the Revenue.2. The issue involved in the present appeals is classification of various types of parts of agricultural implements. The Additional Collector in his impugned order has classified 10 items out of the 18 items under the erstwhile Tariff Heading 52 and the remaining 8 items under Tariff Item 68. The respective appeals have been filed against that part of the order which is against them. Shri R.K. Jain, Id.Consultant appeared on behalf of the assessee M/s. American Spring and Pressing Works Ltd. and submitted that in the impugned order-in-original the Additional Collector has recorded the contrary findings. At internal page 3 of the order he has stated that the samples could not be procured as the assessee did not supply the same whereas at page 4 he has stated that he has seen samples of 17 items out of 18 items which according to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »