Delhi Court April 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 Central Excise Vs. Indian Spun Pipe Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1996
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT258TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is directed against the order of Collector (Appeals) in which the Collector (Appeals) while upholding the order of the Assistant Collector rejected the Department's appeal.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of R.C.C. Poles and Collars. The respondents had taken credit of duty under Modvat scheme on the strength of gate passes which were endorsed twice and were for lesser quantities than the quantities shown in the gate passes. The respondents submitted their RT 12 returns in the months of September, October and November, 1991. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein on 23-3-1992. The Assistant Collector dropped the proceedings against the respondents herein. One of the grounds for dropping in the proceedings was limitation.3. Shri Ramsaran, the learned DR appearing for the appellant submitted that for computing the period of six months, the date of submission of RT 12 returns is material. T...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dynavision Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT478TriDel
2. We have heard the Departmental Representative. The assessee manufactures assembled printed circuit boards. It is stated that it buys plain printed circuit boards and affixed conponent's other than resistors, capacitors transistors etc all these. The goods thereafter known as assembled or populated printed circuit boards or chassis assembly. Consequent to issue of a Notification 74/85, dated 17-3-1985, printed circuit and unpopulated printed circuit boards were exempted from duty. The assessee concluded apparently after receiving a letter to this effect from the jurisdictional Superintendent, that the product manufactured by it were entitled to this exemption and cleared such goods without payment of duty. Notice was issued proposing recovery of duty on goods so cleared on the ground that they were not goods specified for exemption in the notification. In due course the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand holding that the notification would not be available to the goods manufac...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Garware Plastics and Polyster
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT476TriDel
1. This Revenue Appeal is directed against order in Appeal No.SKM-1361/89-BI, dated 23-6-1989 of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).1.2 The issue involved in the appeal relates to classification of "Video Cassette Cover". The Assistant Collector in order-in-original classified these covers under Heading 8523.00 on the ground that these are identifiable parts, principally and solely designed and manufactured for video cassettes and therefore in view of the Section Notes 2 and 5 under Section XVI of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with Rule 3(a) of the Rules for interpretation are classifiable under Heading 8523.00. Collector (Appeals) on appeal by the Respondents held these Cassette covers to be classifiable under Heading 3926.90. Revenue have come in appeal against the impugned order claiming that video cassette covers merit classification under Tariff Heading 39.23. In their written submission presented by Shri O.P. Arora, Dy. General Manager of the Respondents company they h...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hunur Plywood Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-03-1996
Reported in: (1996)(86)ELT56TriDel
1. The Appeal No. E/2007/85-A is filed by the Department and A. No.E/1217/86-A is filed by the party involving a common issue and, therefore, these two appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. When the matter was posted for final hearing on 3-4-1996, the party remained absent, inspite of the fact that notice for today's hearing has been issued to them. On going through the issues involved in these two cases, we feel that the matter can be disposed of even in the absence of the party and accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri P.K. Jain, learned S.D.R.3. Shri P.K. Jain, learned S.D.R., submitted that the impugned order in Appeal No. E/2007/85-A is in favour of the party, but subsequently the Collector (Appeals) has consciously differed with the earlier view in Appeal No. E/1217/86-A. Hence one appeal is by the assessee and the other by the Department.4. Shri Jain, contended that though major portion of the sales was affected a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)LC77Tri(Delhi)
1. This Revenue appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.M-1945/AHD-1012/86, dated 5-5-1987 of Collector Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The respondents manufacture cotton fabrics and man-made fabrics falling under erstwhile T.I. 19 and 22. They filled Classification List No. 77/85 for man-made fabrics of Sort No. 53423 declaring the contents of fabrics as 67% polyester and 33% cotton. This classification list was approved by the Assistant Collector Central Excise, Ahmedabad subject to drawal of sample and test result thereof. The test result revealed that the fabrics of Sort No. 53423 contained 100% cotton only instead of 67% polyester and 33% cotton as declared by the party.Fabrics of this sort were therefore correctly classifiable as cotton fabrics and liable to duty under Notification No. 55/85-C.E. dated 17-3-1985 and not under Notification No. 35/84 dated 1-3-1984.Consequent upon initiation of the proceedings against the respondents the Assistant Collector confirmed the...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT391TriDel
1. By this appeal the appellants have contested the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held that "I have considered the facts of the case together with the records of personal hearing. The Assistant Collector has not given any reason in support of his contention. On the other hand the appellant has produced orders of the CEGAT and also the Trade Notice issued by the Collector, Bombay-I in support of their contention. The Trade Notice of the Collector, Bombay-I is in respect of Spent Earth. The CEGAT in their order No. 308/85, dated 18-4-1985 (Special Bench 'C', New Delhi) have held that Spent Earth is not the result of manufacture because no one produces anything by degrading it or by substracting from its properties. It is a base material than the activated earth (i.e. baser than the substance activated earth) from which it comes, it cannot be stated that spent earth can be manufactured from activated earth.Similar views have been expres...
Collector of Cus. Vs. Karnataka Power Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)(84)ELT516TriDel
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice. We have heard Mrs. Ruchira Pant, SDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent imported a consignment of cement bags in kraft paper bags. Along with the cement bags, there were also damaged, cut and torn polyproplyne paper bags and slings. Respondent submitted a Bill of Entry for the cement bags and another Bill of Entry for the damaged, cut and torn polyproplyne bags and slings. Assessable value of cement in the one instance and of the bags and the slings in the other instance were determined. Duty was levied on the cement bags qua cement and on the polyproplyne paper bags qua polyproplyne material. The value of sling was fixed at Rs. 3.00 per piece and the value of polyproplyne bags at Rs. 1.50 per bag. Assessed duty was paid and goods cleared.Subsequently, respondent filed refund claim in respect of the duty paid separately on the polyproplyne paper bags and slings. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector, but his order was set aside...
Deputy Commissioner of Vs. British Motor Car Co. Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-02-1996
Reported in: (1996)57ITD565(Delhi)
1. These five appeals pertaining to assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 have been filed by the Revenue against the consolidated order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), which is dated 27-01-1992. As the common issues are involved in all the appeals, they are consolidated and disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience. Common issues raised in all the appeals are as under :- "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 17,00,000 representing the value of the building on the valuation date by ignoring the fact that - (i) the debt secured from Bank is not related to the asset belonging to the assessee. (ii) No charge has been created in respect of said property in terms of provision of Indian Registration Act, 1908." 2. Shri G. C. Sharma represented the assessee and Shri B. K. Haldhar appeared on behalf of the Department.3. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited comp...
Kallo Mal Gopal Chand Vs. the Commissioner/Municipal Corporation of De ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1996
Reported in: 62(1996)DLT536
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) The challenge in this bunch of writ petitions filed by different petitioners is to die validity of the notification dated 15.1.1976 issued by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Delhi under Section 316 of the D.M.C. Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') declaring Katra Pyare Lal to be a public street. This common order shall govern the disposal of CWs. 261,262,263,264,265,266 and 267 of 1976 as they raise common questions of facts and law. (2) According to the petitioners, Katra Pyare Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is a private Katra belonging to family members of late Babu Pyare Lal. This Katra was constructed in 1935 and it consists of about 50 shops on ground floor and offices in balakhan as and an open compound in the centre. The land underneath the building as well as the open compound was the property of Babu Pyare Lal. In 1944, a portion of the compound was built upon and nine shops were constructed after obtaining the sanction of the Delhi Municipal Committee....
Anoop Kapur Vs. Neelu Kapur
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-01-1996
Reported in: 63(1996)DLT74
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.(1) Civil Revision No. 789/95 has been filed by the husband, petitioner herein, challenging the order dated 21.7.1995 of the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi in H.M.A. No. 429/94 fixing interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) at Rs. 5,000.00 per month for his wife, respondent herein, as well as his one son and a daughter and directing payment of a sum of Rs. 5,500.00 towards the litigation expenses and reimbursement of medical expenses of his mentally retarded daughter. Civil Revision No. 916/95 has been filed by the wife questioning the impugned order dated 21.7.1995. This order shall govern the disposal of both the revisions. (2) Brief facts leading to filing of these revision petitions are that the husband (petitioner) brought an application under Section 13(l)(i-a) of the Act against his wife (respondent) in the Court of the Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi. The respondent made an application u/Section 24 of the Act that she havin...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›