Delhi Court February 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 4 of about 156 results (0.023 seconds)Chandigarh Zinc and Residue Pvt. Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT102TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-appeal passed by Collector (Appeals) dated 16-2-1993.2. By this order the Learned Collector (Appeals) confirmed the Assistant Collector's order-in-original, whereby three demands of Rs. 56,315/-, Rs. 63,820/- and Rs. 57,793/- against three Bill of Entries has been confirmed, by denying the exemption of additional duty and S.E.D. under Notification No. 19/88-C.E. as amended by Notification No.27/91-C.E. By these three Bill of Entries the appellants had imported "Zinc Dross (Ball-Milled)" approx. 25% pebbles. The importer had sought classification under Customs Tariff under Chapter sub-heading 2620.19 along with benefit of Notification No. 34/90, dated 20-3-1990 as amended by Notification No. 233/90, dated 3-8-1990 at the rate of 20% ad valorem (basic Customs Duty) plus auxiliary duty at the rate of 40% as per Notification No. 108/91, dated 25-7-1991. The goods were duly examined and assessed as above and allowed clearance. However, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Calico Chemicals Plastics and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT681TriDel
1. The respondents herein had filed classification list No. 6/79-80, dated 7-5-1979 under protest classifying their product viz. PVC Compound Master Batches under T.I. 14(1)(ii). They had also claimed that the product was PVC compound entitled to exemption from payment of duty under Notification 206/77, dated 26-6-1977 which exempted plastic material commonly known as PVC compound from the whole of duty leviable. Show cause notice dated 5-7-1980 was issued proposing classification under T.I. 14 and proposing levy of duty at appropriate rate on all past clearances effected upto 30-4-1979. The Assistant Collector vide his order dated 29-5-1982 upheld classification under T.I. 14-I(ii) and directed payment of duty on clearances for the period from 18-10-1978 to 30-4-1979 under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The lower appellate authority vide his order dated 19-5-1987 upheld the Assistant Collector's order on classification; however, he set aside the demand on the ground of li...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vee Kay Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT420TriDel
1. These are four appeals filed by the Revenue against four different orders-in-appeal, all passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Indore in respect of M/s. Carry Power Enterprises, Jabalpur; M/s. Vee Kay Electricals, Jabalpur; M/s. Dinesh Enterprises, Jabalpur and M/s.M.P. Poly Products Ltd., Jabalpur. As point for consideration in all these appeals was the excisability of PVC coated galvanised wire, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The matter was posted for hearing on 12-12-1994 when Shri Somesh Arora, JDR appeared for the appellant - Revenue. Shri K.K. Bassi, Advocate represented all the four respondents.3. Shri Somesh Arora, Ld. JDR stated that the facts of these cases are similar to the facts before the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Raipur v. D.K. Electrical Industries, and the matters are entirely covered in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal's Final Order No. E/367/94-B1, dated 2-8-1994 in that case....
Tag this Judgment!Astra Idl Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT873TriDel
1. The appellant-asessee is aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 29-1-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. By this order the ld. Collector has denied the benefit of exemption of Notification No. 245/83 and also for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 45/82, dated 28th February 1982 in respect of the item 'Water for injection' manufactured and cleared by them for the period February 1986 to December 1986.3. The facts of the case are that the show cause notice dated 21-1-1987 was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise alleging that the appellant had manufactured and cleared 'water for injection' falling under Tariff Item No. 14E of the erstwhile Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act and the same fell under sub-heading No. 3003.19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act from 1-3-1986, for which they had been paying duty by claiming deduction of 15% discount and 15% Excise duty from maximum retail prices as per Notificati...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT716TriDel
1. Both the appeals involve common issues and hence these are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.The appellants imported 23 bales containing 10,243 kgs of Wool waste from M/s. Mainz & Co. Ltd., Bradford and filed Bill of entry on 9-9-1985 declaring the goods as wool waste. The Certificate of the Wool Testing Services International Limited was also attached with the supplier's invoice. The declaration on the Bill of entry was made on the basis of the order placed on the supplier and upon the invoice which clearly described the goods shipped as wool waste. The consignment was examined; 12 bales were treated as Wool waste and 11 bales as Synthetic [waste]. Thereafter, on the basis of test report, it was alleged that the first lot contained only 19.4% wool and the second lot contained 39.1% wool and the import was treated as that of Synthetic waste, without the cover of valid ITC Licence. The Adjudicating authority upheld the charge in the show cause notice that...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Building and Furnishing Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD198(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against separate orders of CIT(A)-XII, New Delhi dated 9-9-1992, 19-7-1993 and 20-7-1993 for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. As the three appeals involve common issues, the same are being decided by this composite order for the sake of convenience.2. The assessee-company filed the return of income on 30-12-1989 declaring a loss of Rs. 13.14,010. The Assessing Officer noted that the company was engaged in the business through its various units which were furnishing Division for manufacturing and sale of wooden furniture, Arms & Ammunitions Division for purchase and sale of arms and ammunition and Model Division for the manufacture of model items for the manufacture of wooden furniture. Apart from the said activities, the assessee-company owned various properties from which it earned rental income. The Assessing Officer further noted that two of the premises owned by the assessee were M-7and M-15, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and that the said p...
Tag this Judgment!Ashoka Woollen Mills Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-t ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1995]215ITR573(Delhi)
D.K. Jain, J.1. By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice (annexure 'E') issued under section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), requiring the assessed to show cause why the penalty order made under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the respect of the assessment year 1964-65 be not rectified. Since the rectification order was to result in enhancing the amount of penalty leviable, the notice was presumably issued under sub-section (3) of section 154 of the Act. It is pleaded in the petition that the said notice is without jurisdiction and ultra virus because : (i) it is vague inasmuch as it does not indicate the alleged mistake which needs rectification; (ii) the order sought to be rectified having merged in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the officer concerned had no jurisdiction to ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moti Lal Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1995)126CTR(Del)231; [1995]215ITR458(Delhi)
ORDERDr. M.K. Sharma, J.1. In this petition under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this Court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs. 9,91,153?'2. The assessed filed a return of income of Rs. 1,69,153 for the asst. yr. 1987-88 which was accepted as such by the ITO under s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the Assessing Officer came to learn that the assessed had during the relevant previous year ending on 31st March, 1987, received a sum amounting to Rs. 21,00,000 from his employers for rendering valuable services to them for getting enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Accordingly, action under s. 147(a) was taken and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,00,000 was added to the income of the asse...
Tag this Judgment!Kanoria Petro Products Ltd. Vs. Sheetla Agro Industries
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IAD(Delhi)1137; 59(1995)DLT368; (1996)112PLR24
Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 1994 by which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the respondent-Sheetla Agro Industries was allowed. (2) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the written statement filed in Suit No. 253/93 on 2nd April, 1993 in paras 4 and 5, it is mentioned that the answering defendant, i.e., Sheetia Agro Industries received supplies at Lucknow from M/s. G.S. Industries. Paras 4 and 5 are set out as under: ' 4.Only this much is admitted that the answering defendant received supplies at Lucknow from M/s. G.S. Industries. Rest of the contents of para under reply are denied. See additional pleas. 5.G.S. Industries supplied goods at Lucknow. Rest denied subject to additional pleas. ' (3) In the additional written statement the defendant Sheetla Agro Industries has taken entirely contrary stand. The-relevant para 19 of additional written statement is set out as under: '1...
Tag this Judgment!East Punjab Railway Refugees Rehabilitation Co-operative Society Ltd. ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 58(1995)DLT768
Cyriac Joseph, J. (1) According to the averments in the civil contemptpetition, the petitioner is a House Building Cooperative Society and retired Government officials are members of the society. The petitioner society applied to the Dda for the allotment of about two acres of land situated behind Plot No.E-108, Greater Kailash Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi for the purpose of setting up a primary school. However the Dda refused to allot the land to the petitionersociety. The land was transferred to the Commissioner of Police for setting up a Police Station.(2) The transfer of the land to the Commissioner of Police, the setting up a Police Station on the land, and the refusal to allot the land to the petitioner were challenged by the petitioner in Cwp No. 1298/90. The said Cwp was disposed of by this Court on 13/08/1993. By the judgment dated 13/08/1993in Cwp No. 1298/90 this Court prohibited the Dda and the Commissioner of Police from putting to use the above mentioned plot of land for an...
Tag this Judgment!