Delhi Court May 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.
Dornier Luftfahrt Gmbh Vs. K.C.V. Airways
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)275; AIR1997Delhi369; 67(1997)DLT675; 1997(42)DRJ344
Cryiac Joseph, J. (1) By this common order both the applications i.e. is 7224/96 filed by the plaintiff and is 8260/96 filed by the defendant are being disposed of.(2) In is 7224/96 the plaintiff seeks permission of the Court to take the aircraft Dornier 228-220 out of India and back to Germany for comprehensive testing and for retiring the aircraft for commercial use. In is 8260/96 the defendant prays for direction to the plaintiff to hand over the possess of the aircraft Dornier 228-220 to the defendant in airworthy condition. In both the applications replies have been filed. In is 7224/96 rejoinder also has been filed.(3) According to the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany and carries on business of manufacturing, selling and leasing of aircraft. The plaintiff's principal place of business is at Wessling, Germany and the plaintiff has also a project office at New Delhi. The defendant is a company registered under the Companies ...
S. A. Growth Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. ( ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-29-1997
Reported in: (1997)59TTJ(Del)384
ORDERVIMAL GANDHI, J.M. :These three appeals by the assessee, all for asst. yr. 1992-93 are directed against different orders of CIT(A) on identical lines refusing claim of exemption of premium received on maturity of Special Bearer Bonds under s. 10(15)(i) of IT Act.2. Both the parties before us admitted that facts in all the appeals were identical. Accordingly, arguments were heard in ITA No. 673 in the case of S.A. Growth Fund (P) Ltd.The facts in brief are that the assessee, a private limited company was incorporated on 11th February, 1991. It had acquired 885 Special Bearer Bonds issued by the Central Government under the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1981 (for short the 'Bearer Bonds Act'). During the relevant previous year which ended on 31st March, 1992, the assessed encased the above bonds on maturity at a premium of Rs. 2,000 per bond. The total amount realised by the assessed on such redemption was :Rs.(i) Against the face value of Rs. 10,000 per bond...
Jhalani Tools (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT105TriDel
1. This is a stay application filed with reference to the order-in-appeal dated 22-12-1995 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi.2. Learned counsel stated that in this case, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of hand tools and they had filed a Modvat declaration under Rule 57G for F.T. Sheetings etc. which were used by them as packing material.3. They were availing benefit on this basis when subsequently, in addition to F.T. Sheetings, the supplier also supplied them the material in the form of rolls, pouches, vallets etc. and therefore, their Chapter Heading changed. Hence, they addressed another letter to the A.C., Sonepat dated 18-5-1994 informing the A.C. of the said development and subsequently, as advised, filed a formal declaration dated 30-5-1994.4. The authorities below have, however, disallowed the Modvat credit taken from December, 1993 to April, 1994 on the ground that they had filed no declaration regarding F.T. Rolls to cover the aforesaid period and the...
Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT356TriDel
1. Order-in-Original No. 9/89, dated 3-4-1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur is under challenge in this appeal.2. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters falling under Chapter sub-heading 2202 and Bisleri Soda falling Under Chapter subheading 2201 cleared the goods during the period 1-4-1986 till September, 1987 availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86. It appears that price lists had been filed (according to the appellant on insistence of the Department) showing the price as Rs. 14 per crate for aerated waters, Rs. 8/- per crate for Bisleri Soda and Rs. 6.26 per crate for Plain Soda. Under the notification, duty concession was available at different slabs, namely, clearances of the value of Rs. 15 lacs, clearances of the value between Rs. 15 lacs and Rs. 50 lacs, clearances of the value from Rs. 50 lacs to Rs. 75 lacs and no concession was available for clearances of the value beyond Rs. 75 lacs. During the period in quest...
Mayur Syntex Ltd. (In Liquidation) and Atlantic Engineering Services P ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: 1997IVAD(Delhi)821; [1999]96CompCas974(Delhi); 67(1997)DLT836
Dr. M.K. Sharma J. 1. A very important and vital question has been raised in these petitions which requires the immediate attention of this court. The question raised is as to whether on the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, in short the 'Debt Recovery Act', setting up the Debt Recovery Tribunal, 'the Tribunal' in short, for adjudicating upon the claims of the banks and financial institutions, the jurisdiction of the company court under sub-section (1) of section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, to grant or refuse leave of any suit or legal proceedings and under sub-section (3) of section 446 of the Companies Act to transfer the suits or any proceedings to the company court has been taken away and that the said banks and the financial institutions need not apply for such leave either for filing new claims or proceeding with a pending claim, although the company has gone into liquidation and has been wound up by the company cour...
Kailash Chand Gupta Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-28-1997
Reported in: 70(1997)DLT341; 1997(42)DRJ357
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) I have heard the partics. In this case, the contraband gold weighing about two kilos was seized by the Customs authorities on 2.3.1977 and the complaint after investigation was filed almost five years later on 29.3.1982. First Public Witness . on pre-charge evidence was examined in July, 1982 and thereafter second Public Witness . was examined only in April, 1987. It is more than fifteen years now since the complaint was filed and the mailer is still.at a stage of pre-charge evidence. In this very case, departmental adjudication was undertaken and not only the adjudication was concluded, but even. appeal against the original order stood disposed of on 23.7.1983. The concluding para of the appellate order may be relevant for consideration of the present case. It is repro- duced hereunder:- 'In view of the above discussion, we do not find any force in his appeal. A penalty of Rs. 50,000.00 has been imposed upon him. This case is of 2.3.77 and the appellant has already ...
High Energy Batteries (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT340TriDel
1. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants.However, in response to the notice of hearing, there was a request from them to decide the case on merits. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of this order after hearing Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR for the Revenue.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of High Energy Storage Primary Batteries. They claimed exemption under Notification No.167/71-C.E., dated 11-9-1971 on the ground that the goods were manufactured in a Research Institute. The Assistant Collector in the impugned order had rejected the benefit of the said Notification and held that the appellants are not eligible for exemption. This view was held-up by the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order. The Collector (Appeals) in his order has held that the laboratory of the appellants' factory, who are engaged in commercial production, of high energy storage batteries and sale thereof, cannot be held to be an institute which is of a technical educatio...
Collector of Customs Vs. Associated Stone Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1998)(98)ELT542TriDel
1. This is a Revenue appeal arising out of the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-3-1991. The importer imported four consignments of Diamond Gang Saw Blades. The assessee had classified the same under Chapter Heading No.82.01/04 of CTA, 1975. The importer filed a refund claim which was rejected by the Asstt. Collector. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the importer's plea for classification of goods under Chapter Heading 68.01/16(2) of CTA, 1975. The Revenue is aggrieved with this.It was contended by the ld. DR that the matter has already been decided by the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Granite (India) v. Collector of Customs & C. Ex. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 536 (T), in the case of C.C. v.Manjushree Minerals Ltd. 1993 (64) E.L.T. 85 (Tribunal) and in the case of M/s Paharia Marbles Industries [Final Order No. C/349/97-B2, dated 18-2-1997] reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 645 (Tribunal).2. We have heard the ld. Representative of the importer's company. On careful consideration and perus...
Raasi Ceramic Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(95)ELT401TriDel
1. This appeal arises from the Order-in-Original dated 12-1-1989, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad.2. By this order, the Collector has held that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, therefore, liable to pay duty of Rs. 4,02,142.81 and has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on account of the fact that (i) the assessees were manufacturing Ceramic products like wash basins, urinals, pans, etc. falling under Chapter sub-heading 6908.10. (ii) Plaster of paris moulds falling under Chapter sub-heading 6807.00.3. It was alleged against the appellants that they had filed classification list for products falling under Chapter sub-heading No.6908.10. On verification, the officers found that the assessees neither filed a classification list nor claimed any exemption for the manufacturer of plaster of paris moulds manufactured and utilised in the factory of production for manufacture of ceramic...
Sanghi Medical Centre Vs. Cc
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-27-1997
Reported in: (1997)(71)LC836Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant imported one Ultra Sound Machine from U.S.A. in January, 1988. In the Bill of Entry filed for its clearance, the assessable value was declared as Rs. 4,10,464 corresponding to invoice price of US $ 31,852. A sum of US$ 7463 was not included by them in the assessable value originally but it appears the customs authorities directed them to include the same. This amount was then entered in the box captioned Loading/Local Agency Commission. The payment of duty was made on two days, 20.1.1988 and 27.1.1988, the latter payment being for the duty referable to the sum of US $ 7463 which was made under protest. The appellant filed a refund claim or the duty paid on such added value on the ground that such added value was Technical Handling Charges paid to the local agent of the suppliers for installation, servicing and training which should not have been included in the assessable value. The refund claim was for Rs. 38,469. The appellants also made an additional claim stating ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »