Delhi Court March 1998 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.
Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC422Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in this appeal filed by the Revenue is the eligibility of raw naphtha (sic) into the respondents' factory under Chapter X Procedure for intended use of manufacture of fertilizer, to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 187/61-C.E, dated 23-12-1961 as amended and Notification No. 75/84-C.E., dated 1-3-1984 as amended.2. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of understanding the scope of the dispute are that the respondents herein had brought raw naphtha under (sic) rate of duty for the manufacture of Di-ammonium Phosphate, (sic) Sulphate and Urea. Since it appeared to the department that these (sic) products were cleared and sold for industrial use as chemicals and were (sic) put to use as fertilizer for agricultural purposes, the department was of the (sic) that the condition of the Notification above mentioned, regarding end use was not satisfied, and therefore, demands were raised under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rule...
Citroflex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT319TriDel
1. The appellants were manufacturing organic chemicals on job work basis for M/s. Citurgia Bio-Chemicals Ltd. The raw materials were procured by the appellants on behalf of the principal manufacturers for which the payment was made by the principal manufacturers. The examination of the Annual Report revealed that the appellants were getting unsecured loans from the principal manufacturers. On recording the statements of concerned persons, show cause notice dated 9-5-1991 was issued alleging that the appellants were hired labourers for M/s. Citurgia Bio-Chemicals Ltd., that M/s.Citurgia Bio-Chemicals Ltd. were the owners of the raw materials as well as finished goods, that the transaction between them were not on principal to principal basis and therefore, the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was wrongly taken by the appellants. The show cause notice also invoked the proviso to Section 11A on the ground that the fact that the appellants were hired labour was suppressed with inte...
Nickson Pharmaceutical Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT223TriDel
1. The appellant manufactured medicines. The classification list filed by him was approved by the Assistant Collector. Later on, an application was moved before the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(4) claiming that certain medicaments, shown in the classification list, were being manufactured on behalf of the two loan licensees, who were not holders of SSI Certificates. On this ground, it was claimed that for the clearances of these medicaments, duty would be leviable. The applicant claimed for modification of the classification list. The Collector in the impugned order held that in terms of para 4 of the notification, the benefit was not available for these clearances. He, further, held that even if the goods manufactured on behalf of the loan licensees, were treated as goods manufactured by the actual manufacturer, the benefit would not be available since the goods were affixed with the brand name of the loan licensees, who were not eligible for the benefit of the notific...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Emco Transformers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT24TriDel
1. In this appeal the department has challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals), Bombay allowing benefit of Notification No.160/86, dated 1-3-1986 in respect of Radiators holding that notification only exclude transformers and Chokes for flourescent tubes from its purview. According to the Collector, radiators, being part of the transformers, are also excluded from the purview of the notification. M/s. EMCO Transformers Ltd., respondents have requested for transfer of appeal to West Regional Bench at Bombay. As the appeal is disposed of, their request for transfer of appeal is rejected.2. We have considered the submissions of the department. We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the Collector (Appeals) that what is excluded from the purview of the Notification No. 160/86 is the transformers and chokes for flourescent tubes and not the parts thereof. As the radiators are part of the transformer the benefit of Notification No. 160/86 is available to them. In view of t...
Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Del)610; [1998]233ITR712(Delhi)
R. C. Lahoti, J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act 1961, arising out of the assessment year 1974-75 and made at the instance of the assessed seeking opinion of High Court on the following two questions of law;1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct for the purpose of computation of the deduction 33 1/3 of the total qualifying expenses incurred on exports under Section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in excluding a sum of Rs. 35.11.495/- representing the following items incurred by the assessed in the accounting year relevant to Assessment Year 1974-75 holding that the same is not an expenditure to qualify for the said relief.1.Interest on Post Shipment Export Credit Loan Rs. 1,05,497/-2.Exchange Rate difference Rs. 5,02,235/-3.Inland freight on Exportconsignments. Rs. 11,58,938/-4.Ocean freight on Exportconsignments Rs. 14,39,555/-5.Forwarding charges on export consignment Rs. 3,05,270/-35,11,495/- 2. Whethe...
Mehmood Alias Mudia Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)464; 1998CriLJ2408; 1999(1)Crimes460; 75(1998)DLT77; 1998(45)DRJ280
ORDERDalveer Bhandari, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of this learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16.4.1977. The accused/appellant faced the trial under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 376 IPC but convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 366 and imposed a fine of Rs.200.Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:-2. According to the prosecution, in the morning of 12th March, 1975, Tara and Bappo, two minor daughters of Babu Khan went to deliver lunch tiffin to their uncle Munnan at Jama Masjid. While returning, they hired one tonga of one Dhunnia. The appellant was also already sitting in that tonga. The tonga driver took tonga to Shahdara on the instructions of the appellant and both these girls were kept by the appellant there on that night at Shahdara. Next day the younger daughter Bappo...
Otis Elevators Co.(i) Limited Vs. M/S Skipper Construction Co.(Pvt.) L ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)722; 1998(45)DRJ140
ORDERC.M.Nayar, J.1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,03,960.21 with costs and pendente lite and future interest. 2. Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at 61, Gateway Building, Apolo Bunder, Bombay 400039 and its regional office for Northern India at 11th floor, Himalaya House, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Shri A.S. Herwadkar is the Regional Manager of the plaintiff company at the said regional office and is conversant with the facts of the case and is duly authorised and competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suit. He also holds a power of attorney from the plaintiff in this regard. Plaintiff carries on the business of manufacture, maintenance, installation of elevators and other such materials and devices. 3. Defendant is a registered private limited company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, and has its registered office at Skipper...
M.G.F.(India) Ltd. Vs. Pinkey Bhatia and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: 1998IIAD(Delhi)793; 1998(1)ARBLR513(Delhi); 1998(46)DRJ26
ORDERC.M.Nayar, J.1. The present petition is filed under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitra-tion Act, 1940 for filing the Arbitration Agreement dated June 19,1991 in Court and for passing an order for reference of the disputes between the parties to the named Arbitrator. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and has its registered office at 17-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002. Shri Rajiv Gupta is Director-in-charge and constituted attorney of the petitioner company and is conversant with the facts of the case and is authorised by the power of attorney executed in his favor by the Board of Directors to initiate, sign, verify, institute and file the present proceedings. The petitioner company is carrying on the business of hire purchase and leasing at its registered office and purchased one Maruti 1000 CC A/C Car bearing Engine No.140399, Chassis No.105555 and Registered No. DL-5C-2525 from M/s Pasco Automobiles vide their Invoice No.0701-55012-...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR433(Delhi)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the assessment year 1969-70 and made at the instance of the Revenue seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following questions of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally correct in directing the Income-tax Officer to admit the assessor's claim for deduction in respect of the expenses of Rs. 15,03,927 under Section 35B and to decide the issue on the merits ?'2. The dispute is about the entitlement of the petitioner to weighted deduction on the expenditure of Rs. 13,03,927 under Section 35B(1)(b). The plea was not specifically raised before the Assessing Officer but was raised, for the first time, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not admit the claim. In a further appeal to the Tribunal by the assessee, the Tribunal has admitted the plea but directed the Income-tax Officer to consider ...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. International Exporters
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-09-1998
Reported in: [1998]233ITR23(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the assessment year 1974-75, made at the instance of the Revenue, and seeking the opinion of the High Court on the following question of law :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the assessed is entitled to the weighted deduction on the following expenditure-commission Rs. 10,390, foreign telephones Rs. 2,302, salaries 75 per cent, of Rs. 50,754, insurance (ECGC) Rs. 774, sale promotion expenses Rs. 6,300, rent 50 per cent, of Rs. 6,000 and printing and stationery 50 per cent, of Rs. 5,119 ?'It is not disputed that the assessed is a firm carrying on business in the export of readymade garments, handloom clothes and handicrafts. The assessed claimed weighted deduction under Section 35B by reference to several items of expenditure. Each of them may be dealt with individually.Commission Rs. 10,390 2. The Income-tax Officer d...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »