Delhi Court April 1996 Judgments

Travancore Electro-chemical Vs. Collor. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT269TriDel

1. "Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri J.M. Sharma, JDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant manufactures what is known as "Acetylene Black". For clearances effected duty was paid at the rate stipulated in old Tariff Item 64. Subsequently, appellant applied for credit of duty relying on Notification No. 283/82, dated 27-11-1982 which gave partial exemption in the matter of duty regarding various items including item No. 42 described as 'Carbon Black.' The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) held that Acetylene Black manufactured by the appellant is not "Carbon Black" and, therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of the Notification. Accordingly, claim for credit of duty was rejected. These orders are now challenged.4. The lower authorities have held and this is supported by the Departmental Representative, that the description of "Carbon Black" as including "lamp-black" and "Acetylene Black" in old Tariff Item 64 was o...

Ranjit Singh Rana Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997VAD(Delhi)84; 68(1997)DLT519

Lokeshwar Prasad, J.(1) Mr. V. Nainani, the Arbitrator filed the award dated the 25.7.1995 Along with the proceedings in the Court. Thereafter notice of the filing. of the award was given to the parties directing the parties to file objections, if any, in accordance with law to the said award within 30 days of the service of notice. None of the parties has filed any objections to the award though time for filing objections has already expired. As no objection to the award has been filed by any of the parties I make the award dated 25.5.1995 given by the Arbitrator Mr. V. Nainani, a Rule of the Court and a decree in terms thereof is passed. The respondent Uoi will make payment of the decretal amount within eight weeks from the date of order otherwise the decretal amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of the decree. There will be no order as to costs....

Chander Mohan Chadha and ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 84(2000)DLT269

(1) Rule D.B. was issued on 9th August, 1995. The respondents though served have not appeared. No counter or reply to the writ petition or the Cm has been filed. As there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the case is directed to proceed ex parte against the respondents. (2) Counsel for the petitioner is heard on merits. (3) A short question arises for decision in the petition. The property in question was assessed to Property Tax for the years 1985-86,1986-87,1987-88 and 1991-92. Appeals were preferred which have been allowed and disposed of by the Adm, Delhi by a common order dated 7th April, 1992 (Annexure B). The fault which was found by the Appellate Authority with the orders of assessment has again been repeated in Resolution No. 1433 dated 15th March, 1993 for the year 1989-90, Resolution No. 1434 dated 15th March, 1993 for 1990-91 and Resolution No. 2 dated 31st March, 1994 for the year 1994-95. The Assessing Authority has opined that every year's assessment was an ...

Skk Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT372TriDel

1. The appeal was filed on 20-12-1991 without a copy of the order of adjudication passed by the Additional Collector. The copy of the order was produced only in 1992. The adjudication order bears the date 12-12-1990. It is contended that the appellant received a copy of the order only on 15-2-1992 and therefore, there was no delay in filing the appeal and that in any event delay deserves to be condoned. The basic contention is that copy of the order was not initially served on the appellant and was served only after repeated reminders by the appellant.2. On our direction, the concerned file has been placed before us. We find that the Bill of Entry was presented on behalf of the appellant by the Custom House Agent M/s. Renu Feeders, Madras having registration No. R 307; admittedly M/s. Renu Feeders were Custom House Agents of the appellant. The impugned order bears the date 12-12-1990 and was signed on 1-1-1991. The last page of the original order indicates endorsement of copies of thi...

High-tech Carbon Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT123TriDel

1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 111/CE/ALLD/93, dated 23-9-1993 passed by Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad upholding the Order-in-Original No. 13/93, dated 25-5-1993 passed by Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mirzapur Central Excise Division whereby the latter had held the appellants to be not eligible for Modvat Credit on Caustic Soda and Hydrochloric Acid claimed by them to be inputs in relation to the manufacture of their final product, Carbon Black.2. Shri S. Madhavan, learned Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellants. He submitted that the inputs in question are used by them in their demineralisation plant where water is purified and boiled to produce steam. The lower authorities have erroneously concluded that such use of the inputs in question is not in or in relation to the manufacture of Carbon Black, their final product but only in the maintenance of plant and machinery. He referred to the Tribunal decisions in the case of Straw Produ...

Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Bhushan Industries Co. Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT569TriDel

1. This is a bunch of appeals from the Revenue involving the same issue where the respondent is the same. All the appeals are therefore, taken up together for disposal.2. The issue involves classifications of 'two way keys' and 'cotters' used by the railways along with other products namely 'dog spikes' and 'loose jaws'. The original authority had rejected the refund claims of the assessee on the ground that these goods were appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item 68 and not under Tariff Item 26AA (ia) as claimed by the assessee. The Collector (Appeals) on study of the process of manufacture classified all the products under Heading 26AA (ia). While the revenue has accepted this classification with regard to Dog spikes and Loose Jaws, the present appeals have been filed challenging classification of the other two products namely two way keys and cotters.3. Ld. JDR Shri Sharma reiterating from the appeal memorandum stated that where such articles were merely forged from ferrous me...

Resistance Alloys (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT507TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector (Appeals), Allahabad No. 63/94, dated 4-7-1994.2. Ld. Counsel stated that the appellants had imported stainless steel electric resistance wires for the purpose of re-drawing and re-processing the same into those of lesser dimensions. The imported wire was classified under Heading 72.23 of the Customs Tariff as per the relevant copy of the bill of entry produced by them; And the bill of entry description is 'Electric Resistance Wire; Electric Resistance Alloy (Ferroys based) annealed and pickled in coil for redrawing and reprocessing and the details of chemical composition have been shown therein. The relevant invoice also states the same.3. These imported goods were used for redrawing and reprocessing the electric resistance wires of different grades/types and sizes. While filing the classification list before the Central Excise authorities they had asserted that the process of cold drawing to which the imported material was su...

Hi-tech Carbon Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT726TriDel

1. The appeal by M/s. HI-TECH Carbon is against the Order-in-Original No. MP(Demand)(22/94) 30 of 1995, dated 22-8-1995 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad confirming a demand on their of Central Excise duty of Rs. 27,729.46 and imposing on them a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The demand of duty followed the finding that the appellants were not eligible for Modvat credit on Hydrochloric Acid and Caustic Soda which were claimed by them to be inputs for their final product, Carbon Black. The Commissioner has stated in his impugned order that the show cause notice proposed disallowance of credit on the two items in question on two grounds :- (1) These are not the inputs for their final product, Carbon Black but for steam, an intermediate product. (2) They had submitted wrong and insufficient declaration under Rule 57G.He has observed that in the declaration filed by them, the appellants had declared Carbon Black as the final product but had left the Column "intermediate products" bla...

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)57ITD609(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1990-91 is directed against order of CIT(A) rejecting the case of the assessee for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act and directing the Assessing Officer to bring to tax the following receipts : 1. Rs. 8,56,000 representing Entrance Fees received from the assessee from its constituents after rejecting the claim that said receipt was of capital nature. 2. Rs. 2,93,47,205 on account of EMD forfeiture and penalty collected by the assessee on behalf of Central Government 3. Rs. 9,250 representing Entrance Fees not brought to tax by the Assessing Officer.Besides, the other income brought to tax by the Assessing Officer was approved by the CIT(A).2. The assessee, the Apparel Export Promotion Council, ("Council" in short), is a registered company under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 set up for promoting export of garments from India with approval of the Central Government. The Council is registered under section 12A(...

Goyal Gases (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi, who confirmed penalty of Rs. 95,05,296 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. (a) For furnishing of inaccurate particulars about the sale value of cylinders which had the effect of understatement of income to the extent of Rs. 37,44,795. (b) Bogus claim of depreciation amounting to Rs. 37,69,273 on computers which were never owned, used and leased.3. The learned representatives of both the parties have made detailed submissions in respect of both the points separately. Therefore, we shall also consider both the above items separately.4. The facts of the case with regard to first item, i.e., sale value of cylinders, is as follows. The accounting year relevant to assessment year under consideration was from 1st Jan., 1987 to 31st March, 1989.The assessee prepared two P&L A/cs - one for the period 1st Jan., 1987 to 30th June, 1988, and second for 1st July, 1...