Delhi Court December 1997 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.
Decora Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)LC80Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Original No. 5/90, dated 24-10-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot is challenged in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of ceramic tiles in the factory near Rajkot in Gujarat, was effecting sales in wholesale to dealers within the State of Gujarat at the factory gate, stock-transferring goods from the factory to the branch at Bombay from where sales were made to dealers within the State of Maharashtra, stock transferring goods to certain consignment agents at Indore and Cochin through whom goods were sold to wholesale dealers within the States of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala respectively. Three price lists were filed in Part I, one in respect of Gujarat disclosing no trade discount, one in respect of Madhya Pradesh and Kerala claiming deduction of 8% trade discount and another in respect of Maharashtra claiming deduction of 3% trade discount. On approval of the price lists clearances were made on payment of appropriate duty. Enquiry showed ...
District Excise Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer (ito V. Distt.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)66ITD168(Delhi)
1. These four appeals filed by the assessee and four cross-objections filed by the Revenue are dealt with together as these contain common issues. They are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.2. The facts in brief are that the ITO (TDS) Dehradun passed an order under s. 206C of the IT Act on 12th June, 1996 for the asst. yrs.1991-92 to 1994-95. The tax liability raised was at Rs. 2,24,72,801 (total). The assessee filed appeal and the CIT(A) Dehradun vide order dt. 29th November, 1996, confirmed the order of the ITO (TDS) Dehradun dismissing the appeal. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal for the concerned assessment years.In the meanwhile the ITO (TDS), Dehradun moved an application under s.154 of the Act on 10th April, 1997, before the CIT(A) Dehradun, contending that a mistake has occurred at the end of learned CIT(A) in entertaining the appeal under s. 246 of the Act. As no appeal lies against the order passed under s. 2...
District Excise Officer Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: (1998)61TTJ(Delhi)770
These four appeals filed by the assessee and four cross objections filed by the revenue are dealt with together as these contain common issues. They are disposed of by a single order for the sake of convenience.The facts in brief are that the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun passed an order under section 206C of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act_on 12-6-1996 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. The tax liability raised was at Rs. 2,24,72,801 (total).The assessee filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) Dehradun vide orders dated 29-11-1996 confirmed the order of the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun dismissing the appeal. Against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal for the concerned assessment years. In the meanwhile the Income Tax Officer (TDS) Dehradun moved an application under section 154 of the Act on10-4-1997 before the Commissioner (Appeals) Dehradun, contending that a mistake has occurred at the end of learned C...
Prem Dass Kalra Vs. Sushil Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1997
Reported in: 1998(46)DRJ188
Mohd. Shamim, J. (1) CRL.M. 55/98 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.(2) CRL.M.(M) 16/98 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since a very short point is involved I do not think it necessary to issue notice in the present case and I proceed to dispose of the same straightaway.(3) The grievance of the petitioner through the present petition is that the learned lower court while disposing of the application for cancellation of bail has used the word culprit while referring to the petitioner. The other grievance is that the petitioner has been warned from creating obstruction and indulging in such type of other activities. According to the learned counsel the same should not have been done.(4) Considering the above facts and circumstances, I think it expedient in the interest of justice to expunge the word culprit and the later portion of the order referred to above. It is hereby ordered accordingly.(5) The petition stands disposed of....
Mysore Panel and Boards (P) Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT559TriDel
1. The assessees filed a classification list effective from 18-4-1990 describing the goods as "sewing machine furniture" and claiming classification under Heading 8452.00. The Assistant Collector, after reading the process of manufacture and after seeing a sample, passed an order on classification holding that the article was merely a block board meriting classification under Heading 4408.90. Against this order the assessees filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) held that the item was not specially designed to be called part of sewing machine and upheld the classification under Heading 4408.90. Hence the appeal.2. Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate, referring to the manufacturing process, claimed that the block board was of special design whereby the middle portion was not filled with the wooden pieces. Referring to the original order, he claimed that the sample examined by the Assistant Collector had a gap in the middle. He stated that the hole or the gap was specifically created for...
Calcutta Steel Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT43TriDel
1. These appeals are filed against the common order-in-appeal therefore these are taken up together for final disposal. The appellants filed these appeal against the common order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) whereby he upheld the finding of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise held that it is established beyond doubt that appellant has actually collected the Central Excise duty from the buyers and had thus passed on the incidence of duty from their own shoulders to the buyers and no refund accrue on them on this count as per unjust enrichment clause under the provisions of Section 12B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector sanctioned the refund and ordered that the amount be credited to the consumer welfare fund under Section 11B(2) and 12C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that respondents has wrongly held ...
Electric Const. and Equip. Co. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (2000)(117)ELT795TriDel
1. The appeal challenges the correctness of the decision taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) vide his Order-in-Appeal No.625-CE/DLH/90, dated 28-8-1990 in terms of which he up-held the order in original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rohtak holding the appellant to be liable to pay duty on their product, transformers after including the charges incurred for what are known as impulse testing charges carried out outside the appellant's factory by specialised agencies like BHEL, CPRI.2. Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant states that an exactly similar issue had come up before the Tribunal earlier in Ashok Transformers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 652 (T) when it was held that such charges cannot be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal in that case followed the decision taken earlier in Shree Pipes Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1992 (59) E.L.T. 462 (T). He pleaded that as the very same issue stands disposed of in f...
LupIn Laboratories Limited Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT52TriDel
1. These appeals arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Indore disallowing modvat credit on certain items.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs and proprietary medicaments falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Scrutiny of the RT 12 returns filed by the appellants indicated that in the month of April, 1995, the appellants took credit of Rs. 2,11,358.65 on capital goods claiming that they were used for the manufacture of bulk drugs and proprietary medicaments. They also utilised the said credit for the payment of duty on the final products. The department alleged that the items on which modvat credit as capital goods was taken were not machines, machinery, plants, equipments, apparatus, tools, appliances, components, spare parts and accessories used for producing or processing of the goods or for bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture o...
Jindal Polyester Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(100)ELT48TriDel
1. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in the impugned order denied Modvat credit on certain items on the ground that they cannot be treated as capital goods for the purpose of Rule 57Q.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Synthetic Filament Yarn. They were availing Modvat credit on certain goods as capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Department alleged that pressure gauges, process control instruments, electronic digital scale, Black Steel Tube, S.S. Powder, S.S. Filters, Digital Multimeters, Spinnerette Inspection Equipment, Quadraflow Cooling Tower Components, Cold Water Cleaning Machines are not capital goods.Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be disallowed on the items and why penalty should not be imposed on them.3. The Appellants, in reply to the Show Cause Notice, submitted that the goods are capital goods or they are spares and, therefore, ...
Samtel (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(99)ELT84TriDel
1. Shri S. Madhavan, ld. C.A., who argued the stay application for the applicants, submitted that Modvat credit on certain quantities of thermocol used as packing material for their final product, namely, black and white picture tubes were denied to them on the ground that the same packing material was also used for packing the inputs received by them, namely, glass shells manufactured by M/s. Teletube Electronics. Glass shells attracted nil rate of central excise duty.The Commissioner by the impugned order found that the applicant, M/s.Samtel (India) Ltd. were in fact availing the Modvat credit on the packing material on the basis of removal of such packing material from their factory to the factory of M/s. Teletube which was located just across the factory of M/s. Samtel (India) Ltd. and no payment of duty in terms of Rule 57F(1) had been paid nor was the prior permission of the proper officer obtained. The ld. C.A. submitted that there was no dispute about the fact that the entire ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »