Delhi Court October 1996 Judgments

Willard India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC353Tri(Delhi)

1. The appellants are manufacturers of Lead Acid Electric Storage Batteries. Lead is one of the inputs they use in their manufacture of their final product. They had taken during the period in question Modvat credit in respect of such input, lead at the rate of Rs. 975/- per Metric Tonne on the strength of deemed credit order dated 1-8-1989 issued by the Central Government. By a subsequent order dated 12-7-1990 of the Government, the rate of credit admissible on lead was increased to Rs. 2100/-. The appellants took the differential credit between Rs. 2100/- per Tonne so introduced and Rs. 975/- per Tonne already availed by them on the quantity of lead which they claimed remained unutilised with them when the increased rate came into effect. The said quantity was stated to be 178.1782 M. Tonne and the differential credit amount taken was Rs. 2,17,324.91p. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Sikandrabad issued a notice dated 31-5-1991 to the appellants asking them to show cause why th...

Tulsiani Builders and Textiles Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT607TriDel

1. The appellants manufactured textured yarn. For clearance of the waste of such yarn, they availed of the benefit of Notification No.214/79, dated 23-6-1979. At a later stage, on the basis of the statement of an officer of the appellants that they were engaged in texturising yarn and not crimping yarn, a show cause notice was issued denying the benefit of exemption and seeking to charge differential duty short levied. The Deputy Collector, in his findings interpreted the notification. He observed that whereas the term 'texturised yarn' appeared in the tariff by way of Explanation to Tariff Item No. 18(ii), the word 'crimping' was not specifically referred. Referring to the same definition, he observed that crimping was one method of texturising the yarn. He, therefore, held that the benefit of the subject notification was available to the waste produced by the assessees. In his discussions, he also observed that if this benefit was to be denied, the assessee would end up by paying du...

Mechano Paper Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC588Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. CAL.CUS-1263/89, dated 23-8-1989. The appellants imported certain components for paper making machinery.The components, it was claimed, ware classifiable under sub-heading 8439.99. There is no dispute in regard to classification. The Appellants, however, claimed partial exemption from basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 155/86 and from CVD under Notification No. 59/87. They also claimed exemption from Auxiliary duty under Notification No. 207/87 on the ground that they were eligible to exemption under Notification No. 156/86. The appellants were denied exemption from auxiliary duty on the ground that this notification does not specify Notification Nos. 155/86 and 59/87 in the Table annexed to that Notification and hence no exemption was available.2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that they opted for exemption Notification No. 155/86 as it granted them more benefit compared to Notification No. 156/86...

Akal Springs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC113Tri(Delhi)

1. Appellants are manufacturers of motor vehicle parts falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68. They were availing benefit of Notification No. 120/75 following invoice price procedure. They claimed deduction of 8% cash discount which was being made available to customers who were making advance payment or who had cash credit balance. The percentage was worked out on the amount of advance payment or the amount of credit balance. Assistant Collector issued notices to the appellant proposing disallowance of the deduction. Appellant resisted the notices stating that discount was offered to all customers and, therefore, was admissible. Assistant Collector rejected this contention and disallowed the deduction. Collector (Appeal) upheld these orders. Hence, the present appeals.2. There is no doubt that cash discount or prompt payment discount is entitled to deduction for arriving at the assessable value. There is no dispute about this position. The dispute in these cases relates to the di...

Jai Talkies Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 4th Oct., 1989 for asst. yr. 1983-84. The first ground raised in the appeal is against the enhancement in income from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,43,531.2. The assessee is a registered firm and runs a cinema house. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed certain discrepancies in the closing cash balance. Explanation was called for from the assessee but the AO did not find it to his satisfaction. He concluded that the method of maintaining accounts was not dependable. In view of this, an addition of Rs. 10,000 was made as additional profit. The CIT(A) examined the cash book and other records in great detail. After examining the records in detail, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there was an unexplained difference in the cash book to the tune of Rs. 1,43,531. After giving credit to Rs. 10,000 in respect of the addition made by the AO, the CIT(A) enhanced the income by an addition of Rs. 1,...

R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee is in appeal against order dated 24-3-1992 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VIII passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act setting aside the order of the assessment dated 31-12-1990 of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act being erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. The relevant facts are that the assessee is a partnership engaged in contract business. On a perusal of relevant record, the learned CIT noted that the order of assessment was prima facie erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the following counts : (a) The Assessing Officer had allowed set off of loss suffered by the assessee in the joint venture business with an AOP, namely, M/s. Unitech Ltd. against its business income; (b) It was unjustifiably allowed deduction of Rs. 46,972 being machinery and equipment written off; (c) Its income from interest ought to have been assessed as income unde...

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs. Kewal Krishan Kohli

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 65(1997)DLT753

K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) The fact that the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant is not disputed. The defendant was let into the possession as a tenant on 1.12.1975, the whole of the first floor except one later in and a small terrace in front of it at the back of the house of the first floor of the building bearing Municipal No. 7608-9, situated at No. 1I, Ram Nagar, New Delhi-110 055. According to the plaintiff there was a lease deed drawn out and executed between the parties. The rent fixed was Rs. 1200.00 per month. In 1981 the plaintiff has filed the eviction petition against the defendant bearing No. E-226/81 now pending in the Court of Shri R.K. Yadav, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. (2) The main case of the plaintiff is that the tenanted premises is residential and it was let out for the personal residence-cum-office of the defendant. The defendant is doing manufacturing activity and storing inflammable materials. thereforee, according to the plaintiff, the ...

Jai Talkies Vs. Income Tax Officer.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1997)57TTJ(Del)745

ORDERP. PARIKH, A. M. :The assessed is in appeal before us against the order of the learned CIT(A) dt. 4th Oct., 1989 for asst. yr. 1983-84. The first ground raised in the appeal is against the enhancement in income from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,43,531.2. The assessed is a registered firm and runs a cinema house. In the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed certain discrepancies in the closing cash balance. Explanationn was called for from the assessed but the AO did not find it to his satisfaction. He concluded that the method of maintaining accounts was not dependable. In view of this, an addition of Rs. 10,000 was made as additional profit. The CIT(A) examined the cash book and other records in great detail. After examining the records in detail, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that there was an unexplained difference in the cash book to the tune of Rs. 1,43,531. After giving credit to Rs. 10,000 in respect of the addition made by the AO, the CIT(A) enhanced the income by a...

Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Etc.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT569TriDel

1. The three applications being aggrieved by order of the Designated Authority under the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, the Act) have filed these appeals. They have filed applications seeking stay of the aforesaid order of the Designated Authority. The applications are opposed by Designated Authority and M/s. Gujarat Apar Polymers Ltd. (for short, GAPL) on whose complaint the proceedings were initiated by the Designated Authority.2. GAPL is engaged in manufacture of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (for short, NBR). M/s. Nippon Zeon Co. Ltd. (NZCL) and M/s. Japan Synthetic Rubber Co. Ltd. (JSRCL) are engaged in the manufacture of NBR which is sold in domestic market in (Japan) and also exported to other countries, including India. The complaint filed by GAPL alleged, inter alia alleged that the two Japanese concerns have been exporting NBR to India at prices for below 'normal value' as defined in Explanation (C) to Sub-section (1) of Section 9A of the Act, that such ...

Utkal Steel Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT660TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Utkal Steel Ltd., Sundargarh, Orissa, being aggrieved with the order-in-original dated 31-12-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar.2. The matter related to the classification of the products which the Revenue had held as flats, classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(1) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff and the appellants have contended that the goods were bars classifiable under Item No. 25(9)(2) of the said Tariff. The Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar, had held in his order that the goods in question were flats. He had confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 89,912.50. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on M/s. Utkal Steel Ltd. 3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant, appearing for the appellants stated that the goods manufactured by them were bars and that they have no arrangement for rolling the edges of controlled contour. They were producing bars from re-rollable material during the period 4-6-1985 to 26...