Delhi Court August 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.
Willard India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. (Dy. Cit V. ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-27-1996
Reported in: (1997)58TTJ(Del)369
ORDERT. V. RAJAGOPALA RAO, PRESIDENT :Assessee, a public limited company, is a leading manufacturer of jute bags and automobile batteries. It has its manufacturing units located at Chittivalasa (Andhra Pradesh) and Sikandrabad (UP) respectively. Since common points are involved in the appeals for the assessed as well as the Department, we can conveniently dispose of these appeals by a common order.2. We take up assessees appeals first for disposal.3. For asst. yr. 1984-85, Rs. 54,071 and Rs. 13,914 were debited towards expenses incurred on provisions, etc., purchased for Ocean View bungalow at Chittivalasa and staff holiday home at Puri. The AO asked the assessed to explain the nature of the expenditure. As regards the expenditure incurred over staff holiday home at Puri, the AO completely agreed with the contentions of the assessee. However, as regards expenses incurred for Ocean View bungalow at Chittivalasa (AP), the AO held that it was used as guest house and, thereforee, expenses ...
L.V.T. Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT251TriDel
1. Appellant is absent in spite of notice but has sent written submissions to be considered by us. We have heard Shri T.R. Malik, SDR and perused the papers.2. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits, part of which is evidently packed in metal containers. Under Notification No. 34/83 biscuits and other specified products are exempt from so much of duty of excise as is equivalent to duty of excise leviable with reference to that part of the value which represents the cost of metal containers in which the goods are packed at the time of their removal from the factory. The appellant therefore paid duty only on the value of biscuits, excluding the value of the metal boxes. Appellant was also enjoying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986. Under this notification so far as single product is concerned the limit of duty- free clearances was rupees fifteen lakhs. During the period in question, the value of clearances of biscuits was under fifteen lakhs i...
Annapurna Malleables Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT260TriDel
1. It is observed that in this matter Stay Order No. S/185-186/96, dated 26-4-1996 has been passed and the appellant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as ordered by the Bench on that date.2. Since the appellant did not comply a notice under Section 35F was issued to them asking them to report compliance failing which their appeal would be liable to be dismissed without further notice.3. In response the appellants have moved a modification application requesting for modification of the aforesaid stay order insofar as it relates to the Appeal No. E/202 & 203/96-NB.4. The Ld. Representative of the appellants stated that the appellant is a State Government undertaking of Madhya Pradesh Government. It was declared as a SICK UNIT by BIFR and the State Government also declared it as a relief undertaking i.e. an undertaking to which relief was required to be extended.5. On the last occasion when the matter came up before the Bench they were granted only partial relief as at th...
Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT284TriDel
1. The refund claim filed by the assessee has been rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption in terms of Notification No. 93/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985.2. Heard Shri M.P. Deb Nath, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri G.D. Sharma, ld. JDR for the Revenue.3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that Notification No. 93/85-Cus., dated 17-3-1985 exempts paper-making machinery and component part thereof falling under Tariff Item 84.31 as per S. No. 15 of the relevant notification. In the instant case the appellants have imported Rotor and Shaft which was claimed as parts of Raphinator classifiable under Heading 84.31 read with Notification No. 93/85 as paper-making machinery. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Advocate for the appellants that item imported by the appellants can be used for pulp cutting and not for paper-making machinery. We find that since the notification exempts only paper...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sushil Kaur and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Delhi104
1. The appellant Delhi Development Authority (in short DDA) preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 24th August, 1992. This appeal was filed on 13th December, 1993 and the same was listed as RSA No. 132/93. Along with this appeal, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed.2. DDA in this application has tried to assign reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Those reasons can be summarised and sum up in two parts -- one dealing with the delay which can be attributed to the panel lawyer Mr. Alok Kumar, who took almost a year in sending the certified copy of the judgment and decree sheet. Second set of delay is on account of red-tapism in taking official decision and in official movement of the file.3. From 24th August, 1992 when judgment was delivered, according to DDA till 28th April, 1993 certified copy of the judgment/decree sheet was not sent by the panel lawyer. After his removal from...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jackson Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-26-1996
Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)351; 70(1997)DLT535
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) This is an appeal directed against an order of learned Single Judge of this Court who has under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 directed the disputes between the parties to be referred to arbitration by a retired Judge of this Court. (2) The relevant facts may briefly be noticed. On 8.8.95 an auction was held by the respondent-DDA for the sale of leasehold rights in vacant plot No.C-149 measuring 1010.32 sq.mtrs. in Rewari Line, Phase-11, New Delhi. The petitioner paid Rs.4,85,000.00 . On 12.9.85 the petitioner was issued an allotment-cum- demand letter requiring the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.l4,55,011.00 . The petitioner did not pay the balance amount as it had come to its notice that there was encroachment on the plot auctioned by the Dda and it may not succeed in getting vacant possession of the plot. The Dda tried to sort out the matter. On 10.6.87, the petitioner tendered the balance amount by demand draft which was returned by the DDA. It a...
Collector of Customs Vs. L.N. Gadodia and Sons (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(87)ELT495TriDel
1. In this Revenue appeal the question that requires consideration is whether "King Sovereign" imported by the respondents herein were classifiable under Heading 7118.90 or not. Relevant facts are : M/s.L.N. Gadodia and Sons (P) Ltd., Delhi, respondents herein, filed a Bill of Entry dated 3-10-1994 for clearance of 100 pcs of "King Sovereign" (Gold Coins) of 22 carat purity each weighing 8 gms and collectively 800 gms having assessable value of Rs. 3,34,280/-. They classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 7118.90 and sought clearance thereof against the Special Import Licence (SIL) issued in terms of ITC Public Notice No. 64 (PN) 1992-97 dated 21-10-1992 and Public Notice No. 120 (PN) 1992-97 dated 31-3-1993 claiming the benefit of Notification No.117/94-Cus. and declared on the Bill of Entry that duty shall be paid in convertible foreign currency out of the "Exchange Earnings, Foreign Currency Account". Customs authorities found that EXIM Policy 1992-97 allows the import of ...
C.C.E. Vs. Prem Khalsa Iron and Steel Rolling
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT51TriDel
1. Shortly put, the issue for determination in this appeal is whether Modvat credit can be taken, which is alleged as neither in accordance with Rule 57A nor 57GG.2. The facts of the case are that the respondents herein took modvat credit on the strength of invoices issued by Ambala Depot of M/s Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). It was alleged that these invoices did not contain the particulars as required under Rule 52A nor the particulars of the manufacturers as required under Rule 57GG. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why modvat credit amounting to Rs. 21,768.00 should not be denied to them. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents herein submitted that all the invoices were issued by M/s. IOC Ltd., Ambala; that M/s IOC, Ambala was registered with the Central Excise Department; that the sale outlet of M/s IOC Ltd. received non-duty paid goods and sell the same after payment of duty from their depot; that the i...
Vxl India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT295TriDel
1. The appellants imported two consignments of titanium tubes and cleared the same after payment of duty on the invoice value plus landing charges, the former having included the insurance charges relating not only to the CIF value but the duty amount also.Subsequently they filed refund claims on the ground that the insurance amount should have been restricted to only C & F value. The claim was not accepted by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals).Hence the present appeal.2. The appellants are not present nor have they arranged any representation on their behalf. The appeal is accordingly taken up for disposal on merits after hearing the SDR, Shri T.R. Malik.3. On perusal of the appeal papers and details of calculation furnished by them therein, we find that the appellants have established that they had paid insurance on the element of Customs duty also. The amount involved is Rs. 6,860/- plus Rs. 6,489/-. The insurance charges that would normally be payable to arriv...
Vikram Plastics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-23-1996
Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT247TriDel
1. These appeals arise from a common adjudication order, Order-in-Original No. MC-146/89, dated 28-7-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay ordering that the value of Low Density Polyethylene imported from Brazil by the appellants should be taken as US $ 780 per Metric Tonne for purposes of assessment of Customs duty as against the value of US $ 680 per Metric Tonne declared in the relevant invoices covering the consignment. While ordering so, the Collector had, however, held that the local indents and Sales Confirmation covering the imports were genuine. The charge of misdeclaration of value as well as the proposal for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty contained in the show cause notice were dropped by him.Aggrieved with the order fixing the assessable value as above rejecting the invoice value, the appellants have filed these appeals.2. Shri B.N. Rangwani, learned Consultant appeared for the appellants M/s. Supreme Plastics. He pleaded that the invoice prices ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »