Delhi Court March 1996 Judgments

Indian Delco (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)59ITD268(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) whereby the first appellate authority has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of the appellant under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. To set out the relevant and brief facts of the case, the appellant in this case is a Pvt. Ltd. company engaged in the business of metal printing, coating, varnishing, lacquering and sizing, etc. Its turnover during the year under appeal was Rs. 3,70,15,570 which included sales to UNICEF amounting to Rs. 2,58,26,371. These sales were claimed by the assessee to be its "export sales" for purposes of relief under section 80HHC.3. The order for the aforesaid purchases had been placed by UNICEF under the aid-programme of the UNO and this required goods to be consigned/delivered to designated consignees as specified by UNICEF.The Assessing Officer has recorded findings of fact to the effect that all designated consignees ...

Bansal Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT318TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of Collector (Appeals) order dated 30-10-1991 vide which he dismissed the appeal as time barred under the provision of Section 35(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Shri Guha, Ld. advocate claimed that the delay in filing the appeal before the Collector was caused on account of papers having been retained by their counsel. Referring to the letter of the advocate representing the appellant in the High Court in the writ matter, submitted that the delay was caused because the file was misplaced in the chamber of the counsel. Ld. advocate referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhrangadhra Chemical Works v.Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 133 (Tribunal). He stated that the litigant who is seeking refund did not have anything to gain by deliberately delaying the filing of an appeal.He therefore, requested for remand of the case back to the Collector after condoning the delay in filing the appeal,...

Trilokchand Chaudhary Family Vs. Collr. of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT510TriDel

1. The appellants have aggrieved with the order-in-Appeal dated 4-1-1988. By this order, the Collector (Appeals) has modified the order of the Assistant Collector only to the extent of remission of duty on the loss of the goods by theft from stores, the value of Rs. 7,05,000/-. The facts of the case are that the appellants had purchased a vessel "M.V. SEA FALCON -I" in Adm. Suit No. 18 of 1985 in the public auction held by Sheriff of Bombay on 12-12-1985 for a bid value of Rs. 80,30,000/- with terms and conditions stipulated in the tender form, particulars of vessel are also given in the said form by Sheriff of Bombay. 'M.V. SEA Falcon-F came to Bombay as a carrier of goods on its voyage on 26-6-1985 and thereafter same was arrested on 29-8-1985 persuant to the order of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Adm. Suit 18 of 1985.Upon purchase of vessel 'M.V. SEA FALCON-F for "Breaking and scrapping", the appellants had approached Asstt. Collector of Customs J. Group Bombay for clearance of s...

Mirdula Detergents (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT369TriDel

1. This appeal has been filed on the issue of denial of modvat credit of duty on inputs received under challans, Gate passes subsequently provided duly endorsed.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergents. For the manufacture of these detergents they purchased certain inputs and the inputs were supplied by M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd., Sahibabad; the appellants submitted before the lower authorities that gate pass was covering 6000 kgs. of the inputs and it was mutually agreed that these will be supplied in 3 instalments of 2000 kgs. each. It was submitted by the appellants that the first 2000 kgs. of goods were entered in RG 23A Part I but no credit at the time of receipt of these goods was taken; that with the third consignment of 2000 kgs. relevant gate pass was received. On the back of this gate pass M/s. Godrej Soaps Ltd. had certified that 2 earlier consignments sent under the challans were covered by this gate pass. The Assis...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Shri Venkateshwara Industries

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT511TriDel

1. In the instant appeal the Assistant Collector has classified the two products, namely, Rubber Roll Pipes and Rubber Polishers under Tariff Item 68.2. The Revenue has filed the present appeal requesting the classification for rubber polishers under Tariff Item 68. Ld. S.D.R., Sh. A.K. Madan, made the similar request.3. In reply, Shri Arun Mehta, Ld. Advocate, submitted that against the said Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector, respondent filed their appeal before the Collector (Appeals) only challenging the classification of rubber roll pipes as the classification of rubber polishers under Tariff Item 68 was accepted by the respondents.Therefore, he would have no objection if the rubber polishers are classified under Tariff Item 68 as submitted by Shri A.K. Madan, ld.D.R.4. Considered. In view of the above, we restore that part of the Assistant Collector's Order which classifies the rubber polishers under Tariff Item 68.5. It may be stated for the purpose of record t...

Collector of Customs Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT49TriDel

1. Respondent imported a Charmilles D440 ISOCUT Electrical Discharge Machine with attachments, declaring value of 3,10,732.02 Swiss Francs (Rs. 15,01,300/-). Supply was from Switzerland. The consignment was in four cases. Bills of Entry dated 18-10-1984 was filed through clearing agents. The Port Trust authorities noted that one case was broken and another case was damaged and repacked on aboard. Respondent applied to the Assistant Collector of Customs (Docks) for examination prior to assesment and for survey and the same was ordered. Customs Officers, including a machinery expert examined the packages in the presence of an independent machine surveyor and technical representative. Details of damages were recorded on the Bill of Entry, but the value of the machine was not appraised. However, the goods were cleared on payment of duty of Rs. 12,26,589.45 on full value, without abetement.Thereafter, the respondent's insurer arranged survey in its factory by Steamer Agents and Insurance C...

Indian Maize and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The assessee has moved this stay application for stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 5,48,726 out of the total tax demand of Rs. 6,48,725.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri R. Santhanam, submitted that in this case regular assessment had been made on 23rd March, 1994 under s. 143(3) and the same was accepted by the assessee as well as by the Department. He further submitted that the AO proceeded to make rectification in the said assessment order with reference to the adjustment made under s. 143(1), which was before the regular assessment. In the intimation received under s. 143(1)(a) an adjustment of an amount Rs. 10,995 had been made with reference to the provisions of s. 43B on account of non-furnishing of proof of payment along with the return of income. He also submitted that in the order made under s.154 the AO held that there was a mistake apparent from record insofar as the assessee-company had not made any disallowance in respect of interest amounting to Rs. 88,33...

Indian Maize and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1996)55TTJ(Del)119

ORDERB. S. SALUJA, J. M. :The assessed has moved this stay application for stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 5,48,726 out of the total tax demand of Rs. 6,48,725.2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri R. Santhanam, submitted that in this case regular assessment had been made on 23rd March, 1994 under s. 143(3) and the same was accepted by the assessed as well as by the Department. He further submitted that the AO proceeded to make rectification in the said assessment order with reference to the adjustment made under s. 143(1), which was before the regular assessment. In the intimation received under s. 143(1)(a) an adjustment of an amount Rs. 10,995 had been made with reference to the provisions of s. 43B on account of non-furnishing of proof of payment along with the return of income. He also submitted that in the order made under s. 154 the AO held that there was a mistake apparent from record insofar as the assessee-company had not made any disallowance in respect of interest...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Polymers

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT493TriDel

1. These revenue appeals are directed against common Order-in-Original No. 79/CEX/1988, dated 16-3-1988 of Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Pune.2. The respondents have moved the four indentical Misc. applications to raise the preliminary objection that the review order passed in their case was time barred.3. Arguing on these Misc. Applications the ld. Advocate for the respondents submitted that under Section 35E(1) the Board can review the order of the Collector of Central Excise but the same has to be done within one year under Section 35E(1) from the date of the decision or the order. In this case the adjudication order was issued on 16-3-1988 by Collector of Central Excise, Pune while it was attested by his Superintendent on 14-3-1988 and was stencilled on 10-3-1988. The Collector of Central Excise, therefore, must have signed the order prior to 14-3-1988. Since the review order issued by the Board is signed on 15-3-1989 and also issued on that date, the decision was tak...

Renu Bindra Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT622TriDel

1. On the occasion of appellant's marriage in 1987, her cousin living in Hong Kong purchased "Xerox Copier/Paper Master/P/M Camera for offset printing and sent it to appellant, as marriage present. On behalf of the appellant invoice, showing price of Hong Kong $ 6,500 and connected documents were produced along with the cash memo relating to the purchase by donor's purchaser which was of the date 4-4-1987 for a price of Hong Kong $ 15,600. The correctness of the invoice was doubted on the basis of price of 6,500 said to have been noticed for a similar copier made in U.K. The Deputy Collector passed an order adopting the U.K price as the basis and giving due weightage to the different source of origin (the machine imported by the appellant was of Japanese origin and imported from Hong Kong) and giving discount available in practice, Deputy Collector fixed the assessable value at Rs. 75,000/-. He rejected the contention that the machine was an old one on the basis of physical verificati...