Delhi Court November 1996 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Adhunik Detergents Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT321TriDel
1. E/Reference 51/96-NB arises from a final order passed by Shri Gowri Shankar, Member Technical and E/Reference/124/96-NB arises from a final order passed by Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member Technical. Shri Gowri Shankar, Member Technical has since been transferred Bombay Bench. Shri J.H. Joglekar, Member Technical is presently sitting in a two-Member Bench and hence they are not available to sit in a single Member Bench to hear these reference applications. Hence by general order passed by President, these reference applications are to be posted for hearing before the regular single Member Bench for the day. In a similar situation, Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President had directed the Registry to place the reference application before the very Member who passed the final order in the appeal, Shri K. Sankararaman, Member Technical, who had passed the final order. This order was passed in Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad v. Chandra Industries, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 155 (Tribunal). This orde...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ambica Metal Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT681TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-Appeal dated 11-2-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. In para 6 (ii) of his order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held as under : "The portion of the appeal relating to the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 3,88,821.00 demand of Rs. 379871.00 relating to two way keys cleared between 1-7-1984 to 24-10-1984 is upheld and the demand is set aside to that extent. Confirmation of the demand of Rs.8950 relating to M.S. Cotter for the period 13-8-1984 to 24-10-1984 is upheld and the appeal is rejected on that count." 2. The Revenue had challenged that part of the order which relates to the duty demand in respect of two ways keys. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in his order had stated that any demand prior to the issue of Trade Notice dated 25-10-1984 was hit by time bar. The Revenue had pleaded that in that case the duty was demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Centr...
K.K. Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(91)ELT635TriDel
1. These three appeals arise out of the same order-in-original and are, therefore, being taken together for disposal.2. The three appellants had imported polyester [filament] texturised yarn under cover of advance licences and claimed their clearance without payment of duty. Since some documents were incomplete, the goods were permitted to be temporarily bonded. The licences were issued in March, 1985 and bills of entry for the clearance of the goods were filed in November, 1986. Pursuant to the investigations launched by the Customs authorities, the advance licences were suspended by the licensing authority in July, 1987 and were latter cancelled in February, 1988. Show cause notice dated 6-1-1988 was issued to the appellants alleging that the goods were liable to confiscation and that the importers were liable to penalty. After hearing the importers, the Additional Commissioner in his order dated 31-10-1990, confiscated the goods imported under three bills of entry, prescribed fines...
Udasee Stamping Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT283TriDel
1. By the present appeal, the appellants have contested the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), in his order-in-appeal held that the idea behind the Modvat scheme was that the assessee will avail Modvat credit for the duty which has already been paid on raw material. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) further held that in this case the rejected goods cannot be raw material and that the assessee should have followed the procedure u/r 173H for repairing of rejected goods and therefore, * upheld the order of the ld. Asstt.Collector.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of CRGO electrical stampings and laminations. The appellants are availing input credit facility under the Modvat scheme.During the month of June 1993, the appellants availed Modvat credit of Rs. 38,728/- in respect of 4120 kgs. of electrical stampings and laminations received from M/s. National Electrical Equipment Corporation, Jaipur under GPI N...
Metal Box India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)LC398Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case the claim for refund of duty was rejected on the ground that the goods imported from Spain on 6-2-1987 are not eligible for benefit of Customs Notification 342/76. The appellants had claimed that the impugned goods which were imported from Spain were entitled for concessional rate of duty under the GATT Notification No. 342/76. This however, was effective for imports from Spain only up to 5-2-1987.Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector on the ground that in view of proviso to Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 the date for determination of rate of duty leviable in this case shall be 6-2-1987 and not 3-2-1987 when the actual entry-in-wards was granted to the vessel in question and by that time the Notification No. 342/76 had ceased to be operative.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that the ship "Westerplate" arrived at Madras Port at 300 hours on 6-2-1987. Since it was given berthing facilities at 300 hours at Madras Port on 6-2-...
Collr. of Cus. Vs. Eastern Stores and Trading Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT326TriDel
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against order-in-appeal dated 7-7-1988 of Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. The respondent imported a consignment of Navigational Lights. The goods were assessed under CTH 8512.20. The respondent filed a refund claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the goods are assessable under CTH 85.30. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim. Collector (Appeals) held that these Navigational Lights are in various colours for flashing signals to ships around and port installations for the sole purpose of safety warnings for prevention of collisions. He therefore, set aside the order and allowed assessment under CTH 85.30. In the Revenue appeal, revenue claimed that the goods are properly classifiable under 8431.80 as Electric sound or visual signalling apparatus.2. Ld. DR reiterated the Departmental argument submits that these are used in ships and therefore, they are not covered under CTH 85.30 and would be more appropriately...
Telemecanique and Controls Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: (1997)60ITD483(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) raising for the consideration of the Tribunal three separate and specific issues, but the one which was vehemently contested between the parties was the assessee's claim for deduction. on revenue account of a sum of Rs. 1,65,97,972 being the "exchange loss" arising consequent to the increased foreign currency liability as a result of adverse fluctuation in the exchange rate.2. Taking up for consideration the aforesaid issue, the AO rejected the claim on the basis of a similar view expressed in the preceding assessment year, but taking note of the fact that the CIT(A) had allowed the same, but the Department had gone in appeal against the said order.3. At this stage, we would refer to the proceedings before the Tribunal in the present appeal when on 25th June, 1996, the learned Departmental Representative appearing on behalf of the Department was directed to give the particulars of the appeals (if any) filed by the Reven...
Suram Chand Rahlan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: [1997]226ITR927(Delhi)
1. In respect of the assessment year 1982-83, at the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the return filed by the assessed on March 12, 1985, was a valid return under section 139(4) and the extended period of limitation in terms of section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The Tribunal has found that the return filed by the assessed on March 12, 1985, being a return filed within the time prescribed under section 139(4)(b)(iii) was a valid return as well as a valid revised return under section 139(4) and, thereforee, the Income-tax Officer could complete the assessment within one year of March 12, 1985, which actually he did in terms of section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT : [1996]220ITR67(SC) , it has been held that no revise...
Vijay Kumar JaIn Vs. Baby Care Mktg. Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: 1997(41)DRJ131
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Petitioner who is the owner of factory No. A-52, Group Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi -52, submits that there was a commission agreement between the parties on 01.07.1977. That was subsequently renewed in July 1, 1983. The first respondent is a partnership firm. Respondents 2 and 3 are the partners. On the strength of the commission agreement the petitioner has been receiving commission and the first respondent has been carrying on business in the premises is the case of the petitioner. When the petitioner demanded a possession according to him the first respondent set up a case of tenancy and, thereforee, he is obliged to file this petition seeking an appointment of the arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the first respondent cannot claim to be a tenant in the premises.(2) Per central the first respondent submits that on a true const...
Anil Soni and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1996
Reported in: 64(1996)DLT812
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) Petitioner, the brother of one Mohinder @ Suresh Kumar s/o Ramesh Chand, r/o Village Bho Garh, Narela, Delhi, permanent address r/o Village Khidolee, Parladpur, District Sonepat, Haryana prays for writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orders and/or directions thereby directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other independent agency to reinvestigate and enquire into the entire incident of the abduction of the brother of the petitioner by registering a proper case u/Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code and/or other relevant provisions of law. (2) During the pendency of this writ petition, one Smt. Meena wife of Mohinder @ Suresh r/o Village Khidolee, Parladpur, District Sonepat, Haryana has also moved Cri. M. 5352 /96 stating that no fair investigation has been done by the Delhi Police by recording the statement of material and relevant witnesses in whose presence, threats were extended by Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar of Vijay Nagar, Narela. In ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »