Delhi Court September 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 1 of about 167 results (0.011 seconds)State Bank of India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT81TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the order-in-appeal dated 8-7-1994 passed by Collector (Appeals), Bombay, rejecting the appeal of the importer, and confirming the order of Asstt. Collector, who has rejected their refund claim of Rs. 10,86,49,119.00.2. The appellant imported a consignment of "computer software and Manuals" covered under Invoice No. 910701, dated 3-7-1991 and cleared the same for home consumption on payment of Customs Duty. Subsequently, they claimed refund of the above-stated amount on the grounds that the customs duty on the consignment was assessed on the full value of the invoice i.e. U.S. $ 4084475/- which included one site fee as indicated in the agreement with the suppliers, whereas duty ought to have been charged on the licence fee of the software for single site inclusive of cost of Manuals totally valued at Rs. 401047 only. In support of their contention, they had produced detailed invoice showing bifurcation and relied upon Valuation Rules 9(1)(c) and correspondin...
Tag this Judgment!Seshasayee Papers and Boards Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Cus. (Appeals)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC519Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Appeal dated 24-7-1985, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellants had imported "Refiner Discs" for refinery for their paper mills as parts of paper making machinery and the same had been declared in the Bill of Entry under Heading 84.31 of the Customs Tariff as they had filed a refund application seeking the benefit of Notification No. 54/84-Cus., dated 1-3-1984, which grants benefit of exemption from payment of duty in respect of auxiliary duty of 25% only. The Assistant Collector in the order-in-original has held that on a perusal of the write up furnished by the claimants, it is seen that the function of the refiner is to defibrate the pulp and increase the freeness of the pulp. He has held that it has nothing to do with paper directly and, therefore, the refiner discs cannot be considered as part of paper making machinery for granting the benefit of the said Notification. On appeal, the Collector confirmed this ord...
Tag this Judgment!Siddhartha Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC389Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 11-11-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a visit to the appellants factory the Central Excise officers found that they were engaged in the manufacture of Carbohydrate Protein Food 'Viprot; which contained 50% malt extract, 30% milk or milk powder and 20% sugar with admixture of cocoa, flavour, vitamins, essence etc. The product was being sold in the market in unit containers of 200 gms. On verification of the appellants records Central Excise Officers found that for the years 1983-84 total value of the said product cleared by the appellants had exceeded 80% of the exemption limit prescribed under Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 but the appellants had failed to obtain a Central Excise licence in terms of Notification 2/81-C.E., dated 17-1-1981. Further enquiries carried out by the officers revealed that during the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the tot...
Tag this Judgment!Pride of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT403TriDel
1. The two issues arising for determination in the above appeal arising out of Order-in-Original dated 23-4-1989 of the Collector of Customs, New Delhi are : (a) The nature of the goods, whether disposal goods as held by the Department requiring specific inclusion in the Licence or other than disposal goods as claimed by the appellants. The appellants herein filed a Bill of Entry No. 126, dated 27-2-1987 for clearance of a consignment of ball and roller bearings at the ICD, New Delhi. Along with the Bill of Entry, they submitted various documents including the Invoice dated 13-10-1986 of M/s. Ashwin R. Swali of England, Bill of Lading dated 25-11-1986 and the Certificate of Origin dated 17-11-1986. Subsequently, they also submitted copy of the Import Licence dated 5-7-1985 and Proforma Invoice dated 10-7-1986. As per the Invoice, the goods were 1368 pieces of assorted bearings of different brands and the value declared was Pound * 1988.50 cif (Rs. 38648/-). The goods were examined, an...
Tag this Judgment!V.K.S. Bawa Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD232(Delhi)
1. These two appeals of the assessee relating to assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94, involving common issue, are disposed of by this consolidated order. The issue involved is relating to exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 out of the capital gains derived by the assessee in the aforementioned assessment years.Relevant facts are that assessee had sold certain shares in March 1992 in consideration of Rs. 21,71,680. Since the cost of the shares was Rs. 23,000 only, the capital gain on the sale of shares was Rs. 21,48,680.Assessee had purchased a house property in New Friends Colony jointly with her daughter Mrs. Ushmi Sethi in July 1992 in consideration of Rs. 80 lacs. The investment had been made by the two owners as under:Mrs. V.K.S. Bawa (the assessee) 57,55,371.50Mrs. Ushmi Sethi 22,44,628.50 Assessee has met the consideration from the sale of shares and jewellery. The capital gains on the sale of shares had been disclosed by the assessee in assessment y...
Tag this Judgment!K and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD448(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal three separate and specific issues which are disposed of as under.2. In order to appreciate relevant facts of the case as also the issues involved it would be necessary on our part to mention that the appellant is registered firm engaged in the business of organising lotteries on behalf of the Government of Sikkim. The first ground pertains to the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 1,01,057 under the head "Opening ceremony expenses." The Assessing Officer made the aforesaid disallowance on the ground that the expenditure was inadmissible in nature.3. On further appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was contended that a substantial part of the expenditure pertained to the stay of the firm's stockists in hotels and presents given to them. It was claimed that such type of expenditure was normal business expense and not covered by Exp...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Commissioner of Vs. India thermit Corpn. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1996)56ITD307(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhopal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 being disallowance of bad debt.3. The facts of the case are that the assessee-company derives income from contract work with Indian Railways during the year under consideration the assessee wrote off a sum of Rs. 2,58,537 due from various Divisions of the Indian Railways, which related to various years. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not done any effort to realise the said amount from the above Department. Since there was ray of hope left to recover the bad debt, he did not allow the deduction for the sum of Rs. 2,58,537 claimed by the assessee.4. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) considering the amendment in Section 36(1)(vii) allowed the deduction with the following observation :- What was necessary was that the amount should have been written off and it was n...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Nanda and Co. Vs. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1996]86CompCas283(Delhi)
Jaspal Singh, J. 1. Ram Nanda and Company claims itself to be a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It is plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are allegedly its partners. They have filed this suit against the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and others for a declaration that the letter issued by defendant No. 1 on September 21, 1995, through the Senior Manager, Sandeep Aggarwal (defendant No. 2), is illegal, null, void and vitiated by malice. They have also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking any steps pursuant to the said letter. Along with the suit they have moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for an ad interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking any action pursuant to the letter referred to above till the disposal of the suit. It is this application which has led to his order. 2. Summons in the suit and notice of the application had be...
Tag this Judgment!Vinay Kumar Gupta Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1996)ILLJ698Del
1. The Award in favor of the petitioner/workman was made by the Industrial Tribunal on August 30, 1988 holding that the petitioner was entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. the date of dismissal, namely, May 27, 1981 with continuity in service and full back wages. The award was published in Delhi Gazette on March 10, 1988 and became enforceable w.e.f. April 10, 1988. The application of management, Respondents 3 and 4 for setting aside the Award was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on September 23, 1988. lnspire of request of the petitioner he was not reinstated. The petitioner filed a complaint before Respondents 1 and 2 dated March 3, 1989 under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requesting that the management be directed to reinstate him and pay him the dues immediately failing which the prosecution of the management may be launched at an early date. The writ petition filed by the management against the Award and the order declining to set-side the Award (CWP 679/89) was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Kaur Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1996Delhi568
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (1) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff in Suit No. 3778192 against the order of the learned Single Judge in is No. 5086193 dated 22-2-95 whereby the learned Single Judge granted stay of the suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 1940. (2) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the owner of plot No. 37172, Punjabi Bagh. New Delhi measuring 1322 sq. yds. She entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent M/s. Delhi Polymers & Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. on 7-7-1987 (hereinafter called the builders') for construction of a group housing residential complex on the plot for a total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs. According to her. she received Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of signing the agreement and the balance of Rs. 19 lakhs was payable in 60 days of the signing of the agreement or sanction of building plans by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, whichever was-earlier and balance of Rs. 2 lakhs was to be paid within...
Tag this Judgment!