Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dewan Tyres Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)59ITD9(Delhi)

1. These appeals involving an identical issue were heard together and the same are disposed of by means of a consolidated order.2. Taking up for consideration the appeal for asst. yr. 1988-89, the following grounds have been raised : "1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,10,53,195 in trading results. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to accept capitalization of expenses as made by the assessee and allow depreciation thereon." 3. The respondent in this case is a limited company in which the public are not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of tyres and tubes of various type of vehicles. As observed in the order of the AO, this is the first year of commencement of production. It was stated by the assessee that trial production started in January, 1987, and the commercial production w.e.f. 11th March, 1987. In order to appreciate the ve...

Machinefabrik Polygraph (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of printing machines and allied goods which are sold to customers on payment of prices fixed by the appellants. In regard to some of the sales, the invoice showed that besides the price of machine, the appellants had collected training charges, i.e. charges for training the employees of the customer. On coming to know of this circumstance, notice was issued to the appellants to show cause why the differential duty for the period from 1-4-1978 to 31-5-1983 on certain charges including the training charges should not be demanded. The appellants resisted the notice. The Assistant Collector held that training charges cannot be added to the assessable value but granted deduction for certain other charges. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order. Hence, the present appeal. "As regards the training charges, no doubt they a...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Super Laminates (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT255TriDel

1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice. We have heard Shri T.R.Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Respondent is a job worker who receives raw materials from the customer, does the job work and returns the product to the customer, receiving charges for the job work. On the price lists submitted by the respondent, the Assistant Collector added what he regarded as "profit" to the cost of raw material and job charges for the purpose of arriving at the assessable value under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) directed that the addition of 10% on cost of raw material supplied by the customer plus labour charges as profit was arbitrary. Accordingly, he set aside the order and allowed the appeal. The Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal.3. The records show that the price lists indicate the cost of raw material and the charges received by the job worker from the customer.The charges collected by the job worke...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shri Krishna Rolling Mills

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC146Tri(Delhi)

1. These revenue appeals are directed against order in Appeal Nos. 24 to 30/87(G) (D), dated 27-2-1987.2. Arguing for the revenue, the ld. DR submits that Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order has erred in classifying the inputs as specified inputs under Notification No. 208/83 and thereby has wrongly allowed exemption from payment of duty by Notification No. 208/83 on finished goods, i. e. M. S. Round Bars cleared by the manufacturer. The inputs are plate-cuttings, angle cuttings and M. S. Rod cuttings and these are classifiable as scrap and therefore, are not eligible to exemption under Notification No. 208/83.4. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records of the case. The inputs obtained are M. S. Rod cuttings, angle cuttings and plate cuttings. It is contended by the respondents that these are eligible materials and are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 125(9)(ii) and 25(ii). In terms of Notification No. 208/83, dated 1-8-1983 as amended finished goods specified therein ...

Transweld Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT257TriDel

1. Appellant is absent and is unrepresented inspite of notice. We have heard Shri A.K. Agarwal, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellants are a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes. Major part of the manufactured goods was being sold through M/s. Uniweld, Margao, a partnership concern operating from the same building as the appellants. Apparently discount was being offered to the partnership concern. The Assistant Collector issued notice to the appellants intimating that the prices to M/s. Uniweld were lower than the prices at which M/s. Uniweld sold the product to independent wholesale buyers, that the two partners of M/s. Uniweld are the wife and nephew of the Managing Director of the manufacturer and both the concerns were functioning in the same building and, therefore, the two concerns are "related" persons under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and requiring the appellants to show cause why duty should not be demanded o...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Konkan Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT181TriDel

1. This is an appeal by the Department against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay withdrawing show cause notice dated 25-1-1985 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Badlapur.Respondent is absent and is unrepresented. We have heard Shri Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Shri Malik stated that the only question arising for consideration relates to cost of containers supplied by the buyers free of cost and used by the respondent manufacturer. According to the show cause notice the cost of containers supplied by the buyers had to be included in the assessable value. The Collector, in the impugned order, did not agree with this view and it appears to us rightly too. When the container was supplied by the buyer free of cost and the cost was not incurred by the manufacturer, such cost cannot be part of assessable value.3. During the period in question the Respondent had availed the benefit of Notification No. 120/75, dated 30-4-1975. According to the sh...

Jai Prakash Gupta Vs. Vishal Aluminium Manufacturing Co.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996(39)DRJ46; (1996)114PLR59

Devinder Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiff in a suit for passing off of trade marks, rendition of accounts and damages has in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') sought an order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, distributors and dealers and all other persons on their behalf from selling the pressure cookers (non-electric) under the trade mark VISHAL king and/or other trade mark containing the word 'VISHAL' till final disposal of the suit. 2. After summons were issued and notice in the application was sent, the defendant put in appearance and filed its reply. Pleadings are complete. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The suit is filed on the allegation that plaintiff firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of pressure cookers (non-electric) etc. being household kitchen goods for the last many years. The plaintiff is using one of the celebrated trade ma...

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Government of Peoples Repu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 63(1996)DLT971; 1997(40)DRJ441

R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against an order dated 24-5-96 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court directing the release of vessel M.V. Pranburi which was ordered to be arrested and detained by an earlier ex parte order dated 9.4.1996. (2) The facts in brief. The plaintiff entered into a contract dated 19-7-1995 for sale and purchase of non-Basmati Par boiled rice with the Government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, defendant No. 1 in the suit, whereunder the plaintiff agreed to sell to defendant No.1 50,000 Mt (5%) of non-Basmati Par boiled rice of Indian origin on the terms and conditions contained in the contract. A total of 40,000 Mt (approx.) of rice was supplied by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 and duly received by the latter. 2.1For the balance 10,500 Mt (5%), the plaintiff entered into a back-to-back contract dated 11-11-199$ with M/S Doon Valley Rice Ltd ( a duly incorporated company with the registered office at ...

National Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Gec Alsthom Hvdc India Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)789; II(1996)BC285; 70(1997)DLT267; 1996(38)DRJ753

S.N. Kapoor, J. (1) This Fao is directed against an order dismissing is 1758/96 in Suit No. 442/96. This is was filed to seek injunction restraining the defendant/respondent No.1 from invoking and encashing the two bank guarantees furnished by the defendant/respondent No.2, State Bank of Patiala. (2) The respondent/defendant No.1 accepted tenders of the plaintiff along with respondent No.2 M/s Damodar Tech. International Pvt. Ltd. for the construction of its Bhadravati project awarded to the defendant/respondent No.1 by M/s Power Grid Corporation (India) Ltd. The plaintiff/appellant were awarded civil engineering and building works while the electrical and mechanical works were to be performed by the said Damodar Tech. International Pvt. Ltd. The contract was signed and executed on 17th February 1995 between defendant/respondent No.1 on the one hand and the plaintiff/respondent No.3 on the other. The defendant/respondent No.1 have issued letter of intent dated 29th December 1984. The s...

H.K.L. Bhagat Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)301; 64(1996)DLT316

N.G. Nandi, J.(1) By this criminal revision application under Section 397(1) read with Sections 401 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioner prays for the revision/setting aside of the order framing charge under Section 228 of the Code against the petitioner-accused for Sections 148/188/302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and also quashing of the proceedings. (2) It is mainly submitted by Mr. D.D. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the statement of 15.1.1996 of witness Satnami Bai before the Court as prosecution witness alleging that the petitioner had abetted the commission of looting, arson, murders, etc. is a cryptic statement and there is no evidence, direct or indirect, before the Court with regard to the presence of the petitioner in the area of incident; that the statement of said witness is not admissible except for the purpose of summoning of the accused u/Section 319 of the Code; tha...