Delhi Court May 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
ind. Laundry and Drycleaning Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT581TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Industrial Laundry and Dry Cleaning Equipment Co. Pvt. Ltd., the matter relates to the classification of carriage trolleys. The appellants had sought classification of their trolleys under Heading No. 87.16 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Tariff). Heading No.87.16 of the Tariff covered trailers and semi-trailers, other vehicles not mechanically propelled; parts thereof. The Revenue had classified these trolleys under Heading No. 94.03 as items of furniture. Heading No. 94.03 cohered "other furniture and parts thereof". There is no dispute that prior to the introduction of the new Central Excise Tariff effective from 1-3-1986 the trolleys in question were classifiable as items of furniture under Item No. 40 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, who adjudicated the matter observed that in common parlance these trolleys were not understood as vehicles, ...
Raj Mechanical Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT696TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 26-2-1987 of the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, the present appellants have filed this appeal. By the impugned order a duty of Rs. 38,25,113.25 was demanded from the appellants and a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed.2. Appellants are manufacturers of knitting machines and chemical and dairy equipments with the aid of power for manufacturing items under T.I. 68 of the erstwhile Tariff. On the basis of the visits of the Preventive Officers of the Department and the investigations made by them, notice was issued to the present appellants, namely, M/s. Raj Mechanical Industries, Ludhiana charging them with contravention of Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the various Rules for having cleared excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise Licence, for non-payment of duty and for other procedural and substantive violation of the Act and the Rules and for suppressing relevant information with intention to evade payment of dut...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Vikram Cements
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT98TriDel
1. The Collector (Appeals), Indore, in his order had held that Modvat credit of duty taken on grinding media and explosives is admissible to the assessee. Being aggrieved by this order, the Commissioner, Central Excise has filed the present appeal. The respondents have filed cross-objections. The respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of cement. They filed a declaration in respect of explosives and grinding media balls. The Asstt. Collector held that Modvat credit would not be available to the respondents as the nature of grinding media balls is akin to that of an appliance equipment and tools. The Department also alleged that since explosives are used in mines and not in the licensed premises of the factory under the Central Excise law, Modvat credit was not admissible. The Assistant Collector as the adjudicating authority decided the issue against the assessee whereas in appeal, the ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee and allowed their appeal.2. ...
Nulon India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)(96)ELT668TriDel
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original No.55/Commissioner/95, dated 15-9-1995 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut.2. The Commissioner, Central Excise in the impugned order held that the product engine treatment and manual gear box and differential treatment oils manufactured by the appellant merit classification under sub-heading No. 3811.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as prepared additives for mineral oils and these products are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 120/84-C.E., dated 11-5-1984. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for the period of six months from the issue of show cause notice.3. In respect of product engine coolant, the Commissioner held that this product merit classification under sub-heading 3820.00 of the Central Excise Tariff as anti-freezing preparations and also held that this product is not eligible for the benefit of Small Scale Industries Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 28-2-1986 and 1/93-C.E., d...
Durga Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT558TriDel
1. The captioned appeals pertain to the taking of Modvat credit of Rs. 13,58,554/- for the period October, 1990 to March, 1993 and Rs. 1,60,105/- on 29-5-1993.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium Conductors. They filed a declaration declaring the inputs as well as the final product. The department alleged that the appellants had not declared all aluminium alloys conductors and since the final product was not declared by the appellants, they were not entitled to utilize the Modvat credit taken on the inputs. The lower authorities have considered the various submissions made before them and disallowed the Modvat credit and ordered recovery thereof.3. Shri R. Nambirajan, ld. Advocate, appearing for the appellants submits that as per note 3(a) of Section XV, alloy of any metal is specified and is understood as that of base metal, which predominates by weight. He submits that in the instant case, the predominence is that in terms of n...
income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Resham Devi Jain
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: (1997)62ITD204(Delhi)
1. The following common ground has been raised in all these appeals filed by the revenue and directed against the separate orders passed by the DCIT(A) : "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the DCIT(A) has erred in law in annulling the order under section 154 dated 12-1-1994 giving effect to the findings of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Benches contained in their order dated 18-1-1993." 2. The facts noted by the tax authorities in their respective orders are not in dispute before and the solitary issue which is to be decided is whether the DCIT(A) was right in law in annulling the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154/155 on the ground that these were barred by limitation as provided in sub-section (7) of section 154 of the Income-tax Act.3. No doubt the basic facts are stated in the orders of the tax authorities as also by the Tribunal if its order dated 18-1-1993 in the case of Smt. Kapoori Devi & Smt. Reshma Devi (the present respondent) for assessme...
Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: [1998]92CompCas820(Delhi)
Anil Dev Singh J.1. The petitioner by means of the instant petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, seeks appointment of an arbitrator and an order restraining the respondents from encashing the bank guarantees. The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of jelly filled telephone cables at Rohtak. On February 23, 1994, the Department of Telecommunication floated a tender for the purpose of purchase of various quantities of polythene insulated jelly filled cables (for short 'PIJ') on cash basis. In response to the invitation the petitioner submitted its tender. The tender was accepted and the parties thereafter entered into an agreement on September 20, 1994 (for short 'the initial contract'), a copy whereof has been presented in court today. Subsequently, by letter dated February 2, 1995, the Assistant Director-General (LF), Government of India, DoT, wrote to the petitioner as follows : 'Subject : Supply of PIF/UG cable on deferred terms. Reference :...
Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 1997(96)ELT521(Del)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (for short 'MUL') manufactures motor vehicles. M/s. Bharat Seats Limited (for short 'BSL') a joint venture with MUL, manufactures seats for motor vehicles for exclusive supply to 'MUL'. The seats is one of the inputs of the motor vehicles. The seat assembly consists of three parts. These parts are first manufactured by BSL and sold to MUL and thereafter are re-issued by MUL to BSL for manufacture of seats on job work basis after which BSL supplies the complete seats to MUL who uses it in the manufacture of their motor vehicles. 2. Prior to 21st January, 1989 parts of seats used to be physically transported by BSL to MUL under a gate pass. MUL availed Modvat credit on the basis of these passes. Thereafter the parts were physically re-supplied to BSL under the procedure for the purpose of sending inputs to job works as per Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules (for short referred to as 'the Rules' hereinafter). It is, however, not in dispu...
Jai Bhagwan Vs. the State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: 69(1997)DLT1A
N.G. Nandi, J. 1. The appellant Jai Bhagwan S/o Rameshwar stands convicted in Sessions case No. 223/90 in F.I.R. No. 30/90 for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal assailing the conviction and sentence imposed, shortly stated, are that Dharam Pal (deceased) and Jai Bhagwan (convict/appellant) were residing in the neighborhood in Village Surehara; that a plot of land admeasuring 100 sq. yds. was said for Rs. 9,000/- by Dharam Pal and his brother to Jai Bhagwan that half of the sale consideration was paid whereas half remained payable by Jai Bhagwan; that on demand, there was refusal to pay the remaining sale consideration and Jai Bhagwan used to utter filthy language; that on 9th April, 1990 at about 12.30 p.m. Kartar Singh, brother and Gian Chand, brother-in-law of Dharam Pal had come to and were in the house of Dharam Pal and both were talking with each other; that at about 1 p.m...
Bhriguraj Charity Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-30-1997
Reported in: [1997]228ITR50(Delhi)
Devinder Gupta, J.1. These income-tax references raise the question of the entitlement of Bhriguraj Charity Trust, New Delhi, to exemption from income-tax for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70 and 1971-72 under the provisions of section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The question involved is whether the trust is a charitable trust within the meaning of sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The claim of the assessed has been that it was a public charitable trust. The Revenue was of the opinion that it is a private charitable trust not entitled to exemption provided under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer after examining the trust deed held that the objects of the trust were not wholly and exclusively charitable but only partly charitable. Following the same view, which had been taken in the earlier assessment years, where exemption was claimed and was not allowed, the Income-tax Officer brought the income to tax for the assessment years in questio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »