Delhi Court May 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.
Baliapatam Tile Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT127TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order dated 31-8-1987 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras. This issue before the Collector was correct classification of the goods.The Assistant Collector had classified the goods under Chapter sub-heading 6903.90. The Revenue filed a review application before the Collector. The Learned Collector has held that: "On a careful reading of Chapter Heading 6905, it will be seen that only unglazed materials or hearth of wall tiles are included under this heading. It is not in disputed by the respondents that these goods are used on the exterior walls of buildings. As per the pamphlet submitted by them the method of laying is also mentioned and it is admitted that these are used on the exterior walls of buildings. Therefore, these are unglazed wall tiles. The specific description of unglazed wall tiles being covered under 6905, the correct classification has to be under 69.05 as applied for the application. As against that the claim of the respondents that th...
Tata Engg. Locomotive Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT157TriDel
Hindustan Eever Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 88, the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal referred Appeals No. E/261/89, and 47/89 to a larger Bench.Consequently, the other appeals wherein similar questions arise for consideration have also been referred to larger Bench. Accordingly, this larger Bench, having been constituted, heard the appeals together.Appellant in E/47/89 has placed written submissions before us. We have heard Shriyuts C.S. Lodha, A.R. Madhav and Rajesh Chander Kumar for the various appellants and Shri M. Haji Mohideen, JDR, for the Excise Department.2. The common appellant in Appeal Nos. E/129/87, E/11/94, E/12/94 and E/13/94 manufactures motor vehicles and allied goods falling under Chapters 84 and 87 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), using requisite parts received from the market. Since 1979, parts of motor vehicles, when intended for use in the manufacturing of excisable goods as original equipm...
Rishab Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT93TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 9-4-1992 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh. The appellants manufacture refractoryproducts covered by Chapter 69 Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In their declaration under Rule 174 of Central Excise Rules they had declared the value of clearance of goods as Rs. 4,86,163.25 and had stated that as per their estimate goods of value about Rs. 12 lakhs would be cleared during the year 1988-89. On 12-5-1989 appellants obtained Central Excise Licence on reaching the limit of Rs. 10 lakhs value of clearance which brought them under licensing control. They also paid duty of Rs. 805.35 on the value of clearance Rs. 15,340.25 in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. These details of value of clearance tallied with the information supplied by the appellants to the Sales Tax Department also. The Central Excise Officers however found on verification of the sales figures furnished by the appellants ...
Micronova Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (2003)(158)ELT714TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture Patent or Proprietary medicines falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff. They claimed Nil rate of duty for their product Vitamin B Complex Tablets NFI (National Formulary of India) classifying the same under Tariff subheading 3003.20. A notice was issued to them asking them to show cause as to why the subject goods should not be classified under sub-heading 2936.00 attracting duty at 15% ad valorem and why duty of Rs. 2,51,087/- should not be demanded from them. After grant of personal hearing to them, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore VII Division confirmed the demand. This order having been upheld by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore on challenge by them, the present appeal has been filed.2. Heard Shri K.V. Subramanian, learned Counsel, for the appellants and Shri Mewa Singh, Senior Departmental Representative. They advanced arguments in support of their respective stand.3. We have considered the rival sub...
R.B.N.S. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT687TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order of the Collector dated 25-6-1992.The short facts leading to this order are as follows : M/s. R.B.N.S. Sugar Mills Ltd. manufactured sugar and its by-product namely molasses. The molasses were kept in various tanks. There were four tanks. One tank was pucca in the sense it was made of masonery and had a metal roof. The other three were kuccha pits. All the four were represented in the site plan which were approved by the jurisdictional officer on 3-9-1983. On 3-6-1991, the molasses stored in tank No. 1 (Pucca tank) and tank No. 2 (Kuccha pit) was damaged due to auto-combustion. This quantity was 46,829.50 qtls. The assessee showed this quantity of 46,829.50 qtls. as deduction from the stock in their RT 12 return filed for the month of June, 1991. The show cause notice dated 1-1-1992 was issued seeking duty on this quantity of molasses on the ground that the assessee had not accounted for this quantity to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional officer...
Hind-nippen Rural Industries (P) Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT119TriDel
1. In this appeal the appellants are challenging the confirmation of duty amount of Rs. 24,15,254.96 in respect of clearances of polished granite slabs for buildings and monuments falling under Chapter Heading No. 6807.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, total clearance of Rs. 2,01,27,124.64 cleared without payment of duty for the period 1981-82 to 23-3-1986 under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector also ordered for confiscation of 663 polished granite slabs under seizure, measuring totally 18,944.68 sq. ft. under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and given an option to redeem the same on the payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He has also ordered for confiscation of the land, building, plant, machinery, materials, conveyance and any other things used in connection with manufacture, production, storage, removal and disposal of the excisable goods under Rule 173(2) of the Central Exc...
Collr. of Customs Vs. New Tech Tool Manufacturers Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT143TriDel
1. In all the appeals common question of law and facts are involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.2. The importer imported 'Carbide Tipped Circular Saws'. The same was assessed under Item 82.01/04 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They filed refund claims seeking reassessment under Item 82.06 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which was rejected by Assistant Collector. However, Collector (Appeals) on appeal has held the same to be classifiable under Heading 84.45 of the CTA, 75. Aggrieved by these orders, Revenue has come up in appeal.3. In importers' appeal (C/2815-2817/88-B2) the item imported is 'Tungsten Carbide Tipped Circular Saw Blades'. The same had been assessed under 8202.99. They filed refund claim seeking reassessment under Heading No. 82.08, which was rejected on the ground that the said heading covers "Knives and Cutting Blades ". The Collector (Appeals) has confirmed this finding and hence importer has filed separate appeals. Thus, there are set of appe...
Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD295(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT, Rohtak, dt. 27th March, 1991, made under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, mainly on the ground of setting aside the assessment order whereby the Assessing Officer (AO) has set off an amount of Rs. 1,21,59,314 on account of depreciation against the profits and also allowed the balance amount of Rs. 11,60,225 to be carried forward in the subsequent years.2. The brief facts in this case are that on perusal of the assessment records for asst. yr. 1988-89 the CIT found that the assessee-company had worked out book profits at Rs. 19,09,097. He also observed that the AO had adjusted brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the current income and allowed carry forward of the remaining unabsorbed depreciation for being set off against the income of the subsequent assessment years. The learned CIT referred to the provisions of s. 115J and observed that unabsorbed loss or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, was to be deducted from ...
C.L. Mehra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1996)59ITD99(Delhi)
1. The assessee is in appeal against separate orders of CIT(A) II, New Delhi on various grounds.2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 urged by the assessee in relating to assessment year 1985-86 relate to disallowance of loss of Rs. 38,556 claimed by the assessee in respect of the proprietary business of M/s. Venus Jewellers. The other limb of the ground relates to treatment of the proprietary business of gold jewellery under the name and style of M/s.Venus Bros. and M/s. Mehrasons Jewellers as a single business and consequent allowance of the said loss.2.1 Similar grounds have been raised by the assessee in relating to assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88.2.2 The brief facts relating to these issues are that the Assessing Officer noted from the trading account and profit and loss account of M/s. Venus Jewellers that the assessee had shown a loss of Rs. 38,556 in assessment year 1985-86. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee did not carry on any trading activity during he said year in t...
Surtax Officer Vs. Mehrae-di-hatti [P.] Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-31-1996
Reported in: (1982)1ITD362(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, filed by the revenue, the only contention is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in directing the ITO to exclude an amount of Rs. 2,50,000, representating the amount disclosed by the assessee under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Voluntary Disclosure Act"), from the income of Rs. 15,96,160 as per income-tax assessment, for purposes of computing the chargeable profits for levying surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ("the Act").2. The assessee is a private limited company and the assessment year involved is 1975-76. The company filed a return of the chargeable profits on 30-3-1976 declaring the net chargeable profit at Rs. 78,930.Thereafter it filed a revised return declaring the net chargeable profit at Rs. 3,05,824. The assessment was completed on a chargeable profit of Rs. 4,00,122 and the surtax payable was determined at Rs. 1,54,949 by the ITO's order dated 14-1-1980.3. Agains...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »