Delhi Court March 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.
indica Travels Vs. Raji Sachdev
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-1996
Reported in: 1996RLR240
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The appellant before us has been a tenant with respect to Flat No. 103, Akashdeep, 26-A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.(2) It is not disputed that initially a registered tenancy was created with respect to the said premises for a period of three years. The tenancy in terms of the registered lease was to commence from 1.10.1982, and the lease deed itself provided that the tenancy would come to an end on 30.9.1985.(3) The appellant held over the tenancy by a letter of renewal till 1.l0.1988.(4) The landlady got the tenancy of the appellant terminated by notice dated 13.12. 1988, Ex. Public Witness . 3/E. The notice inter alias stated, 'That my client does not want to retain you as her tenant in the aforesaid flat and she hereby terminates your tenancy by means of this notice from the midnight of 31.1.89 and you are called upon to hand over the vacant physical possession of the tenanted premises to my client immediately after the midnight of 31.1.90. In case you consid...
Wandleside National Conductors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT419TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-original passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Pune.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants manufactured varnishes stating that they manufactured varnishes on experimental basis and since there was no commercial production of varnishes, they had the impression that it did not require any licence to manufacture or they were not required to pay duty as the manufacture was on the experimental basis. The appellants also assembled erected machinery after acquiring some parts on payment of duty from the market. The contention of the appellants was that since the items were embedded to the ground they were not goods. The Department however, alleged that in so far as the manufacture of varnishes is concerned, even experimental manufacture is not exempted from the requirement of Central Excise Rules and stipulations of the Central Excise Act and that appellants were required to pay the Central Excise Duty to obtain Central ...
Collector of C. Ex Vs. Jagatjit Cotton Textile Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT33TriDel
1. These are two Appeals filed by the Department against the common impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) involving a common issue and therefore, they are clubbed together and are being disposed of by the common order.2. Shri Vijay Singh, the learned Senior Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue submitted that the issue involved in this case is whether the margin of profit to be added to the goods captively consumed by the assessee, he submitted that the Assistant Collector had added 10% as margin of profit in determining the assessable value of the goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(2) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules but the Collector (Appeals) has accepted the plea of the party that margin of profit cannot be added in the instant case since the party has not earned any profit based upon their annual accounts for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Shri Vijay Singh submitted that irrespective of the fact that the party has earned notional profit which was required...
Mehta Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT480TriDel
1. By the order of the Deputy Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) appellant was denied credit on goods described as pedal gear change boss and 'plate' on the ground that the declaration filed by it under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules did not contain these nomenclature.2. The advocate for the appellant claims that the first item is covered by the entry in the declaration 'rejected auto parts'. He has produced copies of the gate passes. This described the goods as indicated in the para 1 above. It is not possible to identify these descriptions as part of the automobile although the Tariff Heading 8714.00 shows on the gate pass is for automobile parts. There is nothing to show that the goods are rejected or defective. I am therefore unable to interfere with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) in this regard.3. The other Item has been received from the [Steel] Authority of India although goods are described as 'plate', on the delivery challan cum...
Oriental Carbon and Chemical Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC88Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector (Appeals), Ghaziabad dated 29-1-1993.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants are manufacturers of carbon black and had filed a declaration under Rule 57B for availing MODVAT credit of duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A in r/o the following materials:- 1. Glass Fibre Filter Bags/Fibre Glass Dust Filter bags. Sub-heading 7014.00 The department took the view that the above mentioned materials were not inputs used in the manufacture of final product i.e. carbon black and were hit by the exclusion clause under Rule 57A and therefore no MODVAT was admissible w.r.t. the same.3. It was his submission that the authorities below have erred in arriving at the above finding.4. In this connection he would like to draw attention to the flow chart of the process of manufacture filed by them as Annexure I.5. It was their contention that the carbon black is manufactured out of the feed stock derived from petroleum. It can be seen from the flow char...
Miaami Pharma and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT788TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise, Pune. The Collector in his order had held that (a) concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 29/88, dated 1-3-1988 for the clearance of Zoacide Infusion, Anarobin and Miraphyl during the period March, 1993 to May, 1993 should be denied and further differential Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,542.44 should be demanded and recovered from them (b) The Collector had also held that their product should be classified under sub-heading No. 3003.10 as patent or proprietory Medicaments, other than those Medicaments which are exclusively, Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homeopathic or Biochemic and had demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 69,25,056.48. The Plant and Machinery of the appellants was confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on paymet of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Collector had also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the a...
ilavia Enterprises Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT542TriDel
1. The appellant manufactures and sells a product "shikakai" bathing powder output. It commenced manufacture from 1st August, 1991 and cleared the goods at nil rate of duty. It did not file any classification list or price list for the product or otherwise declare the fact of manufacture and clearance of this product to the Central Excise Department. It filed on 28th April, 1992 a declaration to the Superintendent claiming the goods to be classified under Heading 3003.30 and claiming exemption from duty. Correspondence took place between the appellant and the department with regard to composition of goods. The department issued a show cause notice dated 8-10-1992 proposing classification of the product under Heading 3307.30 of the tariff and consequent recovery of duty [on] clearances from August, 1991. Penalty was also proposed. After considering the cause shown and hearing the assessee the Collector passed the order impugned in this appeal. He held the product to be classifiable und...
T.V.S. Electronics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT340TriDel
1. M/s. T.V.S. Electronics Ltd., Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'TVS'), have filed the present appeal being aggrieved with order dated 21-9-1992 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore.2. The matter relates to the classification of the products Modem, Cartridge Tape Drive (CTD) and Passive Hubs, used with the Data Processing Machines. Data Modem and Fax Modem were classified by the TVS under Heading No. 84.71 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'), and were classified by the Revenue under Heading No. 85.17 of the Tariff. CTD were classified by TVS under Heading No. 84.71 of the Tariff and were classified by the Revenue under Heading No. 84.73 of the Tariff.Passive Hubs were classified by TVS under Heading No. 84.71 and were classified by the Revenue under Heading No. 84.73 of the Tariff. In the show cause notice dated 26-3-1992 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, the extended period of limitation was...
Chemical Process Equipments Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (2004)(163)ELT457TriDel
1. These two appeals are directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that tanks and vessels are not eligible for exemption under Notification 132/86 with effect from 1-3-86 and also gratings fall under Chapter sub-Heading 3926.90 and scrubbers would fall under Tariff Heading 84.21; and also that Notification 132/86 has been superseded by Notification 53/88, dated 1-3-88 and after 1-3-88 no exemption for the goods falling under Tariff Heading 39.22 to 39.25 will be available.3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of a number of items; that the products manufactured by the appellants are purchased by the industrial consumers for storing of chemicals, platforms in industrial/chemical plants; that the said goods are neither purchased by dealers nor they are used as builders ware. The appellants submitted a classification list effective from 2-4-86 and another classification list effe...
Nait Ram Goel Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-1996
Reported in: (1982)2ITD362(Delhi)
1. The essential question is to be decide in this case is whether notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been served and if so, whether there was proper service in order to justify an assessment under Section 147(a) of the Act. A few facts will be relevant to answer the question.2. The assessee is an individual and his main source of income is from partnership firm. He filed a return on 31-7-1974 declaring an income of Rs. 8,810. The return was, however, not signed. The ITO, therefore, treated these return as invalid and on 17-9-1974, he wrote a letter to the assessee stating that the return filed by him on 31-7-1974 is invalid and also suggested that a regular return may be filed. The assessee thereafter kept quiet. The ITO mentioned in his order that proceedings under Section 147(a) were initiated and a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was served on 13-3-1981. The assessee filed a return on 16-3-1981 declaring an income of Rs. 19,906. Notice under...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »