Delhi Court March 1995 Judgments

Choudhari Metal Industries (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)56ITD405(Delhi)

1. The sole contention raised in this appeal is whether the claim of the assessee at Rs. 1,5.0,563 in respect of interest and penalty on late payment of Sales-tax is allowable under Section 37(1) of the Act or not.2. According to the learned AR Shri D.C. Jain, the sales-tax assessments for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were finalised on 11-1-1983 and 27-10-1983 respectively. As per the assessment orders for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 the interest was charged at Rs. 35,018 and Rs. 86,834 respectively. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,21,857 was included in the claim of Rs. 1,50,541 filed by the assessee and disallowed by the revenue authorities. The difference was on account of penalty as well tax charged at Rs. 24,250 and Rs. 4,434 respectively. The interest was paid on account of delayed payment of the sales-tax becoming due on the quarterly returns filed by the assessee. The interest so charged was of compensatory nature and hence was. allowable under Section 37(1) of the...

T.C. Khosla Vs. 1st Maruti Leasing Inc and Others

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that Opposite Party No. 1 (O.P. 1) is carrying on business as a broker. They arrange finances and new cars. Opposite Party-2 is the Oriental Insurance Co. and Opposite Party-4 is the Citi Bank. Opposite Party-3 was the owner of a Maruti Van No. DL 3 CA-4466. Opposite Party1 arranged sale of said Maruti Van belonging to Opposite Party-3 in favour of the complainant. They arranged loan of Rs. 1,01,871/- from Opposite Party-4. The price of the car according to the invoice was Rs. 1,16,771/-. However, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,41,005/- as the sale price of the car. This amount included insurance premium for a period of one year. The car was sold to the complainant on 23.11.90. The car was stolen on 10.6.92. He filed a claim before Opposite Party-2. It is alleged that they offered rupees one lac to him which he declined. Consequently, he filed a complaint. 2. The complaint has been contested by the Opposite Parties. Opposite Pa...

Ecomax Agro Systems Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT688TriDel

1. M/s. Ecomax Agro Systems Ltd. have filed this appeal bring aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).Collector Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had held :- "In view of the foregoing, the denial of Exemption Notification No. 145/77-Cus. to the appellants appears to be correct in law. Accordingly, the view taken by the Asstt. Collector is upheld and the appeal is rejected." 2. The Asstt. Collector in his order referred to by the Collector (Appeals) had held :- "In view of the above facts, circumstances and analysis, I order that the para-wings and accessories covered by Bill of Entry No. 7563, dated 29-9-1993 shall be treated as parts of Powered Hang Gliders and not as parts of Aeroplanes. These para-wings and accessories should be classified and assessed accordingly without the benefit of Notification No. 145/77-Cus." 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of manufacturing Powered Hang Glide...

Collector of Customs Vs. Vijayawada Offset Printers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(78)ELT516TriDel

1. The Collector of Customs, Madras has filed the appeal against the order dated 27-6-1985 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) challenging the findings of the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order that the automatic camera with accessories imported by the respondents herein will be eligible for classification under Heading 84.66 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for the concessional assessment as project import. The facts, briefly, are that the respondents imported automatic camera with accessories against capital goods allowed under Open General Licence (OGL) of Import and Export Policy April, 1984 - March, 1985. They filed an application for registration of their purchase order dated 26-6-1984 under the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulation, 1988 for classification of the goods under Heading 84.66 CTA, 1975. This assessment at concessional rate is available to all items of machinery required for initial setting up of a unit or the substantial expansion of the...

Trackparts of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)LC332Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants imported a Mechanical Track wrench Reversible action with Torque control complete with electrical equipment and standard accessories and claimed the assessment of the complete equipment under Heading 84.59(2) of Customs Tariff Act 1975. However, the Deputy Collector vide his Order dated 1-2-1985 held that the goods were classifiable under Heading 84.59(1). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who confirmed the finding of the Deputy Collector on the ground that the imported Mechanical wrench, type C.M.C.2 being designed for tightening and loosening of bolts and nuts used for fitting Grouser Shoes on Track Link assemlies for Crawler Tractors, it was essentially meant for carrying out repairs and not for production of any commodity.2. On behalf of the appellants, Shri S.K. Kohli, learned Advocate appeared before us. He referred to the manufacturers' catalogue of type C.M.C.2 Mechan...

Food Specialities Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)54ITD352(Delhi)

1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee, one relating to assessment year 1985-86 and another for assessment year 1986-87, by this consolidated order.2. Appellant is a company. The common dispute, inter alia, is relating to the addition on account of unpaid sales-tax collected by the assessee in the course of business. The Assessing Officer treated the collections on account of sales-tax as trading receipts of the assessee. Assessee is admittedly following the mercantile system of accounting. As on 31st December, 1984, a sum of Rs. 95,05,224 had remained unpaid out of the total collections made during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer after treating the said amount as a trading receipt of the assessee refused to allow deduction on account of corresponding liability by invoking provisions of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. For assessment year 1986-87, the addition on similar facts is Rs. 1,35,18,804.4. Assessee had not included...

Premier Electrical Corporation Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1995(34)DRJ67

Jaspal Singh, J. (1) The petition is under section 8 and. 20 of the Arbitration Act. As far as section 8 is concerned I need not detain myself for long as the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not seeking any relief under said provision.(2) It is not disputed that the petitioner had entered into a contract with respondent No.1 for the work of internal electrification of a school at Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi. The dates of commencement of the work was April 20, 1982. It was stipulated that the work would be completed within one month. The petitioner claims that the work was executed and on preparation of the final bill on October 28, 1987 payment was received under protest as it had allegedly not incorporated the entire amount due. This led to disputes and differences.(3) The respondent on the other hand claims that complete payment already stands made and consequently there are no disputes and differences between the parties requiring reference to arbitration. It is ...

Food Specialities Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1995)52TTJ(Del)554

ORDERM. A. BAKSHI, J. M. :We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee, one relating to asst. yr. 1985-86 and another for asst. yr. 1986-87, by this consolidated order.2. Appellant is a company. The common dispute, inter alia, is relating to the addition on account of unpaid sales-tax collected by the assessed in the course of business. The Assessing Officer treated the collections on account of sales-tax as trading receipts of the assessee. assessed is admittedly following the mercantile system of accounting. As on 31st Dec., 1984, a sum of Rs. 95,05,224 had remained unpaid out of the total collections made during the relevant previous year. The Assessing Officer after treating the said amount as a trading receipt of the assessed refused to allow deduction on account of corresponding liability by invoking provisions of S. 43B of the IT Act, 1961.3. For asst. yr. 1986-87, the on similar facts is Rs. 1,35,18,804.4. assessed had not included the collections on ac...

Chairman, Railway Board Vs. S. Bharath and Another

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the OP against the order of the District Forum (D.F.) dated 11-1-93. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the complainants travelled from Madras to Delhi on 23.12.91 by Tamilnadu Express, which leaves Madras at 21.00 hours. It left Madras at 22.20 hours. It is alleged that on 24.12.91 it was detained somewhere in the forest area for about seven hours i.e. from 15.00 hours to 22.00 hours without any reasonable cause. 3. It is further pleaded that on 24.12.91 no evening tea and dinner was served to the passengers causing unbearable agony to them. A complaint was lodged at Amla Station by them but inspite of that no proper arrangements for food were made for that night and for the next day. The train reached Delhi on 25.12.91 at 16.50 hours instead of the scheduled time of 06.45 hours. 4. It is next pleaded that the train was a superfast train for which they had paid higher charges and in few of the late arrival of the train by more than ...

Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT890TriDel

1. M/s. Coromandal Fertilizers Ltd. have filed this appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals). In his order, the Collector (Appeals) had held :- "I have gone through the case records and have carefully considered the appeal. This appeal is for re-assessment of finned tubes under Item 84.17(1), CTA as against the original classification made under Item 73.17/19(1), CTA. As per CCCN Notes at pages 1211 and 1010 these tubes are correctly classifiable under Item 73.17(1), CTA. Customs Tariff Act is based on CCCN and the Item under CCCN vide Explanatory Notes is covered under the Heading 73.17/19. The Explanatory notes though not a part of CTA have pursuasive evidential value and show that how that item is considered in the International trade. Under the circumstances, classification of finned tubes under Item 73.17/19 is in order and the appeal is rejected as inadmissible." 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants imported Finned tubes and presented...