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.
S.M. Shankar Rao Mohite Patil Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT115TriDel
1. In this appeal filed by M/a S.M. Shankar Rao Mohite Patil S.S.K.Ltd., the matter relates to the duty liability on the product Ethyl Alcohol. The Revenue had sought to classify the goods in question under sub-heading No. 2204.00 of the CET, which covered the following :-"2204.00 Ethyl alcohol of any grade (including such alcohol when denatured or otherwise treated) which either by itself or in admixture with any other substance, is suitable for being used as fuel for spark ignition engines." The Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,76,82,928/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs.2. Shri K.P. Joshi, Advocate for the appellants contended that the Ethyl Alcohol manufactured by them was not suitable for being used as fuel for spark ignition engines. He relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Cellulose Products of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara -1996 (84) E.L.T. 154 (Tribunal). He also submitted that there was no suppress...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Banaras House Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR129(Delhi)
R.S. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Revenue seeks a mandamus to the Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following question of law arising out of the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 for the opinion of the High Court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80HHC to the assessee-company.'2. The petition under Section 256(1) of the Act filed by the Department was rejected by the Tribunal forming an opinion that the above said question did not arise as a question of law from the order of the Tribunal.3. The assessed claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-VI, who was the assessing authority disallowed the claim for deduction on the following reasoning as set out in the order of assessment :'Deduction under Section...
Faqir Chand Raghunath Dass Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-1998
Reported in: [1998]232ITR259(Delhi)
1. These are three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the assessed raising the following common question of law arising out of the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 :'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the customs duty of Rs. 33,659 for the first year, Rs. 75,738 for the second year, and Rs. 46,950 for the third year that were paid by the assessee-firm outside India was as an expenditure entitled to weighted deduction under the provisions of Section 35B of the Income-tax Act ?'The assessed is a registered firm engaged in the business of sale and purchase of ivory goods, brass goods and other handicrafts. Most of its business is that of exports in the above said items. The assessee-firm participated year after year in various exhibitions held abroad. During the relevant assessment years, it took part in exhibitions held at Montreal, U.S.A. and Japan. The assessed sent its...
Roshan Lal Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT96TriDel
1. These are appeals filed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh dated 19-7-1991.2. Learned Counsel stated that the appellants are engaged in the process of refining of VNE Oils known as fixed vegetable oils falling under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 262/86-C.E., dated 24-4-1986 which provides for total exemption on aforesaid oils manufactured from fixed vegetable oils extracted by solvent extraction method. One of the conditions of this notification is that the manufacturer is required to produce within such period as the Assistant Collector may allow, a certificate from the designated officer of the Directorate of Vanaspati that fixed vegetable oils have been manufactured from fixed vegetable oils extracted by solvent extraction method.3. It was his submission that during the period January, 1988 to March, 1988, the appellants had cleared 156.615 M. tons solvent extracted rapese...
Metal Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT238TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Metal Containers Pvt. Ltd. against the Order-in-Appeal No. 5/CE/Appl/ 90-Alld/89, dated 31-10-1990.2. The issue involved in this appeal is about the classification of scrap of non-alloy steel whether under sub-heading No. 7204.10 or 7204.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The lower authority has observed that in various bills of entry, the description of the material had been mentioned as steel bulk low carbon M.S.defective sheets and if the raw material is steel, the finished product and the waste arising therefrom would also be of steel. The Commissioner (Appeals) has classified the scrap of non-alloy steel under sub-heading 7204.90 of the Central Excise Tariff.3. The appellants have submitted that the terminology 'non-alloy steel' is used interchangeably with 'carbon steel' to indicate steel other than 'alloy steel; that very low carbon steel with very low contents of manganese and silicon etc. and marketed under trade/commercial...
Jayesh Refrigerations Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC271Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26-9-1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Rajkot confirming the demand of Rs. 1,08,000/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant, proprietor of M/s. Jayesh Refrigerations.2. Appellant's father trades in parts of air-conditioners and appellant assembles air-conditioners in the same premises. By Notification No.64/83-C.E., there was exemption available for clearances of air-conditioners up to the aggregate value of Rs. 2.5 lacs in a financial year provided the value of clearances in the preceding year did not exceed Rs. 2.5 lacs. The dispute in this appeal relates to 1986-87. Appellant had not paid Central Excise duty on the clearances during the year. On 30-9-1986, Central Excise officers visited the premises, seized some records and recorded statements of the appellant and his father. Even, according to the Department, as on that date, the value of clearances during the period was well below Rs. 2.5 lacs....
Tirupati Fibres and Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT446TriDel
1. This application seeks waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 1,93,934/-held to be inadmissible Modvat credit.2. Arguing in support of application, the ld. Consultant submits that the appellants issued an invoice dated 25-4-1994 for a consignment which was intended for the use of the manufacturer consignee. This consignment in its original packing, however, was sent to a dealer who in turn endorsed the invoice and consigned it to the manufacturer consignee for whom it was cleared from the original manufacturers factory. It was initial period of change over of invoice system. Even then, the consignment was not opened by the dealer but was sent in original packing to the manufacturer. The consignment, in fact, went from manufacturing factory to the consuming factory. He submits that Tribunal in case of Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Bangalore - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 595 (Tribunal) held that endorsed invoice was eligible documents since invoice was only a substitute for gate pass and endorse...
LupIn Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC614
1. By the impugned order, the appellants have been denied the benefit of Modvat credit as capital goods on cement and hardner, electrical equipments, electronic platform, scale, electrical weighing machine, spares, centrifugal fan, blower, pollution control equipments, static convertor, safety torch, FRP tank for HBR scrubber, vertical flame arrestor, cryocan container, cylinder, regulator, S.S. platform, Hepofilter, tower packings (Pall Rings), Bin (Tanks) and rupture disc.The total amount of Modvat credit denied on these items was of the order of Rs. 7,40,005.35.2. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the detailed functions of these items were explained to the lower authorities. He submits that he is not pressing Modvat credit on cement and hardner.3. Insofar as electrical equipments are concerned, he submits that electrical equipments comprised of cables, printed circuit, motor control central panel, control box, distribution board/exhaust f...
Shri Sudesh Kumar Mittoo and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)(60)ECC596
1. The appeals arise from order-in-original dt. 26.2,96 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Rajasthan). In the impugned order, the Id. Commissioner has ordered for absolute confiscation of foreign gold pieces weighing 3773.780 gms. valued at Rs. 14,23,355/- seized on 11.1.93 under Section 11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, alongwith the bag used for concealing foreign marked gold pieces, under Section 118 of the Act. He has also ordered for absolute confiscation of Indian currencies amounting to Rs. 25,100/- under Section 121 of Customs Act.2. He has imposed personal penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act against the notices in the following manner: 1. Shri Gordhan Gamanani Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) 2. Shri Sudesh Kumar Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty Mittoo five thousand only) 3. Shri Vasu Gamanani Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) 4. Shri Sandeep Kumar Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) 5. Shri Ashok Sharma Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) 6. Shri Kanhai...
B.H.E. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC43Tri(Delhi)
1. Shri R.K. Malhotra, Deputy General Manager informs that the Committee on Disputes had allowed M/s B.H.E.L. to pursue this appeal with the Tribunal. The Committee on Disputes in their Meeting held on 23-11-1995 had permitted M/s B.H.E.L. to pursue the appeal in CEGAT as per Item No. 26 of the Minutes of the Meeting.2. M/s B.H.E.L. imported among others pipe clamps (made of steel other than stainless steel) and classified the same u/h Noi 7326.90 of the Customs Tariff and availed of the benefit of exemption Notification No.62/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986. After the goods were cleared out of Customs charge, they filed a refund claim on the ground that the clamps were correctly classifiable u/h No. 7308.90 and were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 86/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 (as amended) as they were structures and roofing parts of structures of iron or steel.The Asstt. Collector of Customs (Refund) observed that as the appellants had no documentary evidence to substantiate the...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »