Delhi Court November 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 163 results (0.009 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Testles Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT157TriDel
1. The Revenue being aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal dated 17-4-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay had filed the present appeal, which was heard on 30-11-1995. The respondent - M/s. Testles Ltd., have requested for adjournment on the ground that their offices are lying closed and that the papers pertaining to the said appeal are not available. Shri P.K. Jain, Id. SDR is present for the appellant-Revenue.2. The matter relates to the year 1981. On going through the matter on record, we felt that the matter could be disposed of on the basis of the facts already available and accordingly we rejected the prayer for adjournment by the respondent and asked the Id. SDR to proceed with the matter.3. Shri P.K. Jain, Id. SDR stated that the matter relates to the inclusion of-profit of 5% in the declared cost of the raw material. The respondent were engaged in the manufacture of transmission lines towers on behalf of M/s. Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB). M/s. GEB ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Printers (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)59ITD370(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 28-3-1990 for the assessment year 1988-89 for which the previous year ended on 31-3-1988.2. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of running a printing press, under the name and style of Kumar Printers (P.) Ltd. It specialised in printing small cartons for drug companies.In the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) on 31 -8-1989, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 3,61,684 by invoking Explanation to Section 43(1) by observing as under :- During the year assessee has purchased and installed machinery on which he has paid interest of Rs. 3,61,684 to the D.F.C. up to the date of installation and has debited Rs. 3,61,684 in the head "Interest and bank charges". During the course of discussions assessee was asked to informate as to why the interest paid up to the date of installation should not be capitalised as per Explanation to Section 43. Assessee vide his letter dated 31...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. R.P. Khaitan and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)883; 1995(35)DRJ604; 1996RLR13
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) This petition and a bunch of several others raise an important question of law at the very threshold : Whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lies against an order passed in appeal by the Court of Distt. Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957? The question has several facets :- (I)Whether the Distt. Judge exercising jurisdiction under Section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, acts as a civil court or as a Tribunal? (II)Whether the appellate order under Section 169 above said is amenable to revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code or in other words whether the Distt. Judge acting under Section 169 above said is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC? (III)If a revision lies to the High Court against an appellate order made under Section 169 of the Dmc Act, whether a person aggrieved can be al...
Tag this Judgment!R.B. NaraIn Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT588TriDel
1. In this case, a quantity of 52,230 quintals of molasses involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 15,669/- was drained out by the appellants without following the proper procedure as prescribed for destruction of excisable and dutiable goods. The molasses in question were stored in outside pits and permission for such outside storage had been ob- tained. It is seen from the records that the molasses weighing 52,230 quintals had deteriorated and had become unfit for use. During the relevant time, the molasses was controlled by the State Excise Department and no quantity of molasses could be removed without their permission. Molasses is an important input for alcohol and the control by the State Excise Department appeared to be strict. The appellants sought permission from the State Excise Department for draining out of the damaged molasses. The permission by those authorities was granted.Thereafter, they intimated the Central Excise Department.2. Shri H.P. Arora, Id. Advocate submitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT407TriDel
1. Transhipment cargo consignment covered by Airway Bill No.098-57616812 and House Airway Bill No. 21732 which had arrived from Hongkong by Air India Flight on 6-5-1992 was intercepted on 8-5-1992 on the basis of intelligence information. The consignment consisted of 48 cartons of "Polyester Film Capacitors". Consignee was shown as Shree Electronics, G-41, Noida, Ghaziabad (appellant in Appeal No.C/533/94/A). Consignor was shown as NRCOLA Ltd., Hongkong. Consignor's cargo agent was M/s. Air Freight Ltd., Hongkong. Consignee's . cargo agent was M/s. Air Freight, Calcutta. Instruction was issued to Air India not to load the consignment for transhipment to Calcutta, till the consignee's address was verified. Enquiries conducted through customs and excise officers at Delhi, Noida and Calcutta revealed that there was no such unit by the name. "M/s. Shree Electronics" at the given address. Hence, consignment was opened and examined in the presence of Panch witnesses. The cartons were found ...
Tag this Judgment!Kutch Cement (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT280TriDel
1. Shri L.C. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the appellants applied for an SSI Certificate on 26-2-1986. He submitted that the Notification No. 175/86 granting exemption from duty was issued on 1-3-1986; that the appellants were granted SSI Certificate on 18-10-1986; and since they had applied for grant of such SSI Certificate on 26-2-1986 i.e. before the coming into force of exemption Notification No. 175/86, therefore, the concession under this exemption notification should be available to them as an SSI Unit from 1-3-1986. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Satya Narain Agarwal and Anr. v. Govt. of India reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 476) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. TISCO reported in 1988 (26) E.L.T. 320. The learned counsel also cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SC 1698...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT720TriDel
1. The various issues involved in these appeals relating to determination of assessable value of excisable goods under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, i944 are broadly summarised in the chart as given below :Item of Appeal No. 5432/92 2089 & 2271/93abatementFreight Collector (Appeals) allowed Allowed by Asstt. equalised freight after CollectorHandling Disallowed by Collector Disallowed by Collectorcharges (Appeals) on the basis of (Appeals) as these BTI Para 49 expenses upto the date of delivery cannot be excludedC&FARe- Disallowed by Collector Disallowed as thesemuneration (Appeals) on the ground that expenses are part & parcel expenses go into the value of the of marketing and selling goods. organisationsTurnover Disallowed - prohibition of Allowed by ACTax recovery of TOT in KarnatakaInterest on Disallowed on the MRF decision Disallowed on the groundReceivables recalled that expenses upto date of delivery cannot beInterest on Disallowed on the MRF decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD355(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT (Central) I, New Delhi made under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on various grounds.2. The brief facts in this case are that the Assessing Officer allowed deduction in respect of interest claimed including interest of Rs. 1,29,20,298 pertaining to term loans.2.1 The CIT felt that the interest on term loans and commitment charges for specific projects for the period prior to the commissioning of plant & machinery could not be treated as revenue expenditure and that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly he issued a show-cause notice to the assessee wherein it was mentioned that the assessee claimed interest in respect of cement works at Dalmiapuram. It was further stated in the notice that interest of Rs. 73,87,856 was in respect of term loan obtained for TPD modernisation project at Dalmiapuram. It further mentioned that out of total interest of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Daya Ram
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1996(26)ARBLR150(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT382
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The plaintiff Shiv Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd., has filed this Application No. is No. 3589 (90) in Suit No. 1463/90 against Daya Ram who is carrying on business under the name of M/s. Manju Falls who is the 2nd Defendant in the suit. The relief sought for is that the defendants should not use the trade mark Manju for the purpose of selling blouse pieces. The plaintiff admits that the defendants are carrying on business of selling blouse pieces and saree falls under the trade mark Manju. 2. The case of the plaintiff in Suit No. 1463/90 is as follows : In the year 1980 the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff namely, M/s. Shiv Rubia House and also trading as M/s. Shiv Cotton Mills commenced manufacturing and selling textiles piece goods (blouse pieces) under a fanciful and distinctive trade mark Manju. On 2.12.1989, the trade mark Manju was assigned to the plaintiff-Company. According to the plaintiff the business and increased many fold and the trade mark Manju has ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indo-japan Steels Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT126TriDel
1. These are two appeals filed respectively by M/s. lndo Japan Steels Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against the same order passed by the Collector of Central Excise-II, Calcutta wherein it was held that the former was liable to pay Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,40,681.20 on 639.460 MT of steel ingots cleared by them from their factory during the period February, 1981 to November 24, 1982 without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed by the Collector under Rule 173Q on them. The party has filed an appeal on the ground that they are entitled to the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 66/73, dated 1-3-1973 and also contended that, penalty could not be imposed on them as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. The Department has come up before us in appeal against the order on the ground that penalty imposed by the Collector was not inadequate with reference to the duty evaded and in terms of Rule 173Q it sho...
Tag this Judgment!