Delhi Court September 1996 Judgments

Anand Water Meter Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(92)ELT214TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Anand Water Meters Mfg. Co., against the order-in-original passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin.2. When the matter was posted for final hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellants. The appellants have requested to decide the issue on merits. On going through the issue, we find that the matter can be heard in the absence of the party and accordingly we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri M. Haja Mohideen, ld. JDR for the Revenue.3. The dispute is in respect of concept of related person. According to the department, the appellants and M/s. Punjab Anand Meters (P) Ltd. are related persons and accordingly the price at which the goods are sold by the appellants to M/s. Punjab Anand Meters Pvt. Ltd. is not the real price.4. Shri M. Haja Mohideen, ld. DR justified the order passed by the Collector and reiterated the findings given by the Collector in the impugned order.5. We have carefully considered the submi...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Special Steel Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT707TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue for our consideration is whether the process of Copper coating on bare steel wires amounts to process of manufacture. Both the Asstt. Collector, Bombay and the Collector (Appeals), Bombay had come to a finding that copper coated steel wire would remain classifiable under T.I. 26AA(ia) of the Central Excise Tariff and would not be classifiable under T.I. 68 of the Tariff. The Collector (Appeals) had relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the respondent's own case, Special Steel Ltd. v. CCE - Order No.33-39/86-B-1, dated 25-1-1986 since reported in 1992 (38) ECR 152 in Appeal No. ED/SB/109/83-B1 and Appeal No. ED/SB/1079/83-B1. Para 29 from that decision had been extracted by the Collector (Appeals) in his order.2. Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, appearing for the appellants/Revenue agreed that the matter was covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision. Shri R.Parthasarathy, Consultant submitted that in view of the Tribunal's earlier decision the...

Vinod Plastic Industries Pvt. Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(89)ELT80TriDel

1. The appellants imported one PVC direct injection soling machine.They claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 42/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978. They claimed this benefit on the ground that the machine imported was designed for use in the leather processing and finishing industry or leather footwear industry and claimed, the machine was specifically mentioned against S. No. 148 of the notification. Their claim was rejected by Asstt. Collector on the ground that impugned machine is capable of producing only PVC soles and the notification grants exemption to such machine which are capable of processing the leather in leather industry. The impugned order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals) who held that the appellants had not obtained industrial licence for manufacture of leather shoe.2. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that this machine producing PVC sole directly attaches leather upper to the soles to produce leather footwear. The notification g...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bombay Oil Ind. (P) Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT225TriDel

1. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the matter relates to the eligibility of Nickel Catalyst and Nickel Aluminium Alloy Powder falling under [Tariff Item] 68 for the benefit of Notification No.201/79 as amended when used for the manufacture of Stearic Acid also falling under [Tariff Item] 68. The Asstt. Collector, Central Excise had rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that they were neither raw materials nor component parts of the finished excisable products and thus, were not eligible for the benefit of set-off under Notification No. 201 /79-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 105/82.The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, however, observed that the inputs were not necessarily to form part of the finished product and that raw material need not find place in the final products. He set aside the order passed by the Asstt. Collector, Bombay and allowed the appeal by M/s. Bombay Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf o...

Hindustan Coca Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT180TriDel

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Cadbury's Bournvita, filed a price list on 19-9-1984 showing . the price effective from 8-10-1994 and claiming deduction for the cost of plastic mug to be gifted to the consumer as trade discount. The Assistant Collector initially and the Collector (Appeals) subsequently held that the gift was not in the nature of trade discount but amounted to advertisement and the cost thereof cannot be deducted from the assessable value. These orders are now challenged.2. The matter is covered by an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Glaxo (I) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 451 (Tribunal) where the Tribunal has held that intention behind a free gift to unknown and unrelated retail buyers linking the same with sales cannot be anything but promotion of sale and the cost thereof has to be treated as cost of advertisement and the same cannot be deducted from the assessable value. We follow the above decision and dismiss the ap...

income Tax Officer Vs. Rakesh Singh. Ito V. Prem Singh.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These four appeals relating to three independent assessees are taken together and disposed of by passing a single order. It is for the reason that the facts are common and decision taken on either case has a bearing on the other. At the outset it may be mentioned that appeal filed in ITA No. 8419/Del/1991 is stated to have been filed out of time inasmuch as there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. After hearing the assessee, the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be disposed of on merits.2. Out of four appeals filed, in the case of Shri Kamal Singh appeals have been filed both by the assessee as well by the Revenue. In the cases of Shri Prem Singh and Shri Rakesh Singh appeals have been filed by the Revenue alone.3. Briefly stating the facts, Shri Kamal Singh, Shri Prem Singh and Shri Rakesh Singh are brothers. They are stated to have a common residence wherein, while the upper portion of the house is used for residential purposes, in the ground floor business ...

Justice Sisir Kumar Sen Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996VAD(Delhi)231; 1996(39)DRJ358

C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against the order passed by the respondents on September 6, 1991 raising the demand for alleged misuse charges in respect of the premises situated on plot No.22, Block 127, known as 48, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. The said order is filed as Annexure 'L' to the writ petition.(2) The brief facts of the case are that perpetual lease-deed was executed in favor of one Dr.Jnanada Kanta Sen by Secretary of State in respect of the premises on March 1, 1923. The said Dr.Sen died on January 15, 1955 and in the year 1957 the premises were rented out to Dr.Ved Prakash for residential purposes. It is stated that there was no written agreement in respect of this tenancy. The notice was received from respondent No.2 to landlords of the premises for misuse and breach of clause 6 of the Lease Deed on January 19, 1971 and the landlords, as a consequence, wrote to the tenants on June 30, 1971 for removal of the breach. Similarly, notice was received from r...

Tarlochan Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT487; 1996(39)DRJ195

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) The petitioner through the present writ petition has prayed for quashment of the order dated December 5,1988 whereby the respondent cancelled the allotment of Flat No.50, Pocket R, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, which was allotted to him in Dilshad Garden Residential Scheme under Lig Category. (2) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present petition are as under: that the petitioner is a poor person. He is also physically handicapped. The petitioner applied to the respondent under the New Pattern Group Housing Scheme 1979 for allotment, of an Lig Flat. The petitioner de- posited a sum of Rs. 1500.00 in connection therewith on September 4,1979 which was subsequently- to be adjusted towards the cost of the flat allotted to the petitioner ( vide Annexure P-2). The application of the petitioner was registered at Sr. No. 1127 ( vide Annexure P- 3). The petitioner thereafter received allotment cum demand letter dated 16/17th March, 1988 ( Annexure-1) whereby the peti...

Shyam Sunder Sharma Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT401

S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Petitioner No. 3 was trading in ivory articles made of ivory imported into India at a time when it was a free trade. In 1986, the trade in ivory imported into India was brought under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short referred to as 'the Act') and in accordance with. the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, no person could carry on or commence business in articles made of ivory imported into India unless a license in accordance with the provisions of the said Section was obtained by him. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the partners of petitioner No. 3 and a license is staled to have been obtained the petitioners from the Chief Wild Life Warden, Department of Environment, Forest and Wild Life, Delhi. Regular returns were required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In 1991, the Government decided to ban the trade in imported ivory as well and, accordingly, the Parliament passed the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Bill, 199...

income Tax Officer Vs. Rakesh Singh. Ito V. Prem Singh. (ita No. 8422/ ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1998)60TTJ(Del)674

ORDERSMT MOKSH MAHAJAN, A.M. :These four appeals relating to three independent assessees are taken together and disposed of by passing a single order. It is for the reason that the facts are common and decision taken on either case has a bearing on the other. At the outset it may be mentioned that appeal filed in ITA No. 8419/Del/1991 is stated to have been filed out of time inasmuch as there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal. After hearing the assessee, the same is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be disposed of on merits.2. Out of four appeals filed, in the case of Shri Kamal Singh appeals have been filed both by the assessed as well by the Revenue. In the cases of Shri Prem Singh and Shri Rakesh Singh appeals have been filed by the Revenue alone.3. Briefly stating the facts, Shri Kamal Singh, Shri Prem Singh and Shri Rakesh Singh are brothers. They are stated to have a common residence wherein, while the upper portion of the house is used for residential purposes, in ...