Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 156 results (0.019 seconds)Goyal TIn Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC342Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals arise out of Order-in-Original No.55-Collec-tor/1990-91, dated 24-4-1991 of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The facts in brief are that M/s. Tin Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd., Ghaziabad, hereinafter referred to as M/s. TMC as first appellant, have been sending tin sheets to M/s. Goyal Tin Works (P) Ltd. hereinafter called M/s. GTW, second appellant, for certain processes under Rule 57F(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Central Excise Officers on conducting checks in the premises of second appellant found that the unit was manufacturing metal containers. The unit was actually doing job work on contract basis for the first appellant. Physical verification of the stock revealed that certain goods like metal containers, semi-finished containers, tin sheets were lying in the factory but the job work register contains no entry after challan No. 36, dated 19-6-1988 which indicated nil balance stock.3. Shri Ravi Goyal, Director of the Company explained that the c...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. JaIn Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT273TriDel
1. The stay petition filed by the petitioners M/s. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills seeks waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of hearing the appeal filed by them against the order in original No. 215/91 of a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs imposed on them as penalty under Section 114 of Customs Act by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi thereunder.2. Initially there was doubts whether such appeals arising from orders passed in respect of imports and exports under DEEC Scheme should be heard by the Regional Bench of the Tribunal or a Special Bench but after hearing Shri G.L. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.C. Bhartiya, learned Departmental Representative who appeared for the respondent Collector, when both of them submitted that the appeal is for the Regional Bench only. Shri Rawal referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L...
Tag this Judgment!Prashant Khosla Pneumatics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)54ITD229(Delhi)
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these five appeals relating to assessment years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 by this consolidated order. For assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, there are cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue. For assessment year 1987-88, the appeal is by the revenue. It has been stated before us that the assessee's appeal for assessment year 1987-88 is not pending before the Tribunal as none has been filed.2. We have heard the rival contentions. For assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87, the common controversy is relating to disallowance of commission. For assessment year 1985-86, the claim of commission was to the tune of Rs. 2,28,458 and for 1986-87, the claim of commission was Rs. 5,61,865. The commission was stated to have been paid on the sale of compressors. The assessee had furnished information regarding the supplies made in respect of which commission was paid and the parties to whom such commission was paid. The payment had been made by chequ...
Tag this Judgment!M.K. Awasty Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD240(Delhi)
1. These three appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Range-I, New Delhi raising for the consideration of the Tribunal an identical issue, namely, the taxability of the perquisite value in respect of a car as also the reduction in the claim on account of standard deduction to Rs. 1,000.2. Before I proceed further it would be necessary on my part to mention that in assessment years 1985-86 and 1987-88 this is the only issue whereas in assessment year 1984-85 there is another ground raised in respect of an addition of Rs. 30,274 which was restored by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the file of the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel at the outset stated that he was under instructions not to press ground No. 2 in assessment year 1984-85 and this is accordingly being rejected.3. In respect of the common issue raised in all the three years the Assessing Officer noted during the course of the assessment proceedings...
Tag this Judgment!Ghalib Institute Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD358(Delhi)
1. These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi. Since, in all the appeals common grounds are involved they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground of appeal in all/the years is "the CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in treating the income from hiring of auditorium and of fixtures to be in the nature of income from business".2.1 The facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from rent including the rent from hiring of auditorium and also furniture and fixture. The AO treated the income from hire charges of auditorium and furniture as income from business and by applying the provisions of Section 11 (4A), he denied the exemption Under Section 11 to the assessee.3. The CIT(A) also upheld the order of the AO. Hence, these appeals by the assessee before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust. It, a...
Tag this Judgment!Nihal Chand Harish Chand and Suresh Chand Vs. Assistant Commissioner o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)585
ORDERG. D. AGRAWAL, A. M. :All these appeals by the assessed are directed against the order of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar. Since common grounds are involved, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. The first ground of appeal, in all these appeals, reads as under :'That the learned CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that the assessment by the learned Assessing Officer is totally untenable as there does not exist any AOP and the alleged AOP constituting of Nihal Chand, Harish Chand and Suresh Chand did not exist.'2.1 The facts of the case are that there was search at the residence and business premises of Nihal Chand, Harish Chand and Suresh Chand on 21st Feb., 1989. As a result of the search certain NSCs, FDRs, household jewellery pawning jewellery were found and seized. Certain books of accounts and other documents were also found and seized. The Assessing Officer opined that there was an AOP consisting of Nihal Chand, H...
Tag this Judgment!M. K. Awasty Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)529
ORDERR. M. MEHTA, A. M. :These three appeals are directed against the separate orders passed by the Dy. CIT(A), Range I, New Delhi, raising for the consideration of the Tribunal an identical issue, namely, the taxability of the perquisite value in respect of a car as also the reduction in the claim on account of standard deduction to Rs. 1,000.2. Before I proceed further it would be necessary on my part to mention that in asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1987-88 this is the only issue whereas in asst. yr. 1984-85 there is another ground raised in respect of an addition of Rs. 30,274 which was restored by the Dy. CIT(A) to the file of the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel at the outset stated that he was under instructions not to press ground No. 2 in asst. yr. 1984-85 and this is accordingly being rejected.3. In respect of the common issue raised in all the three years the Assessing Officer noted during the course of the assessment proceedings that in a statement recorded on oath on 13th Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Bhag Polymers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT41TriDel
1. When this application for stay came up, it was decided with the consent of both sides to dispose of this appeal on merits.2. The waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is therefore, granted.3. I now proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal is directed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [which has been confirmed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi]. She ordered the confiscation of PVC compound of value Rs. 96,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, with an option to redeem of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The Assistant Collector has also confiscated 1725 kgs. of polypropylene under the same Rule with an option to redeem it on payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The Assistant Collector also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant.4. Action has been taken on two counts. The first count is that 3200 Kgs. of fully manufactured plastic granules duly packed were found in excess of the balance r...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Alias Suresh Chand Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995CriLJ3741
S.D. Pandit, J.1. The present revision application is preferred by Suresh Chand, original accused No. 2 in FIR No. 33/76 registered by the police of Narela Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379/411 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. PW-2 Surinder Kumar and PW-3 Madan Lal were students of M. L. Higher Secondary School, Narela. They had parked their cycles under school cycle stand on 18th February 1976 in the morning when they went to their school. In the evening they found that both the cycles were missing from the cycle stand. They, thereforee, first approached the principal of the school and lodged a complaint about the missing of their cycles and there after they approached the police and lodged complaint regarding the theft of their cycles. On the strength of their complaint, offence was registered vide FIR No. 33/76 on 25-2-1976 and the present revision applicant as well as one Sahib Singh were arrested by the police. The police were in a position...
Tag this Judgment!Duropolyprene (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT175TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Duropolyprene Pvt. Ltd. against the order-in-appeal dated 17-4-1986 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta.When the matter has come up for final hearing, none appeared for the appellants. However, we find that there was a request from them to decide the case based on merits accordingly we have proceeded to pass this order after hearing Shri M.K. Jain, learned SDR for the Revenue.2. The dispute relates to classification of goods i.e. 'Rice Mill Rubber Roller' manufactured by the appellants. The appellants have claimed the classification of the goods under Tariff Item 16A(3) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They have also claimed exemption from Central Excise duty as envisaged under Notification No. 197/67, dated 29-8-1967 as amended. It was the contention of the party, the machine component made by unhardened rubber in the form of piping/tubing as an item covered under Tariff Item 16A(3). The subject product was a rubber pr...
Tag this Judgment!