Delhi Court March 1998 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1998 Page 5 of about 261 results (0.050 seconds)Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and Anoth ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1998]232ITR207(Delhi); [1998]106TAXMAN399(Delhi)
R. C. LAHOTI J. - On November 23, 1992, the Revenue moved an application under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making a prayer to the Tribunal to state for the opinion of the High Court the following two questions of law arising out of the appellate order dated November 23, 1992 :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)s, direction to allow investment allowance to the assessee-company 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company carrying on job work of insulation is engaged in the manufacture or production of article or thing ?'By order dated October 4, 1993, the Tribunal rejected the application. The Tribunal has not expressed any opinion whether the questions sought to be referred are questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal. ...
Tag this Judgment!C. S. Mathur Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1998)147CTR(Del)75
R. C. LAHOTI, J. :The petitioner is a chartered accountant engaged in providing professional services to various Indian and foreign clients. Services to foreign clients are provided in terms of the agreement entered into from time to time. The petitioner entered into agreements with Mannesmann A.G., Germany on 15th February, 1990, and with Fried Krupp GMBH, Germany on 8th April, 1991. These agreements have been renewed from time to time. The relevant clause in the agreements entered into with the two companies is identical in terms. It is as under :'Consultant (i.e., petitioner) shall provide to Mannesmann/Krupp from time to time advice, information on finance, industrial, business and economic matters relating to India as would be useful to Mannesmann/Krupp and its affiliated company in relation to its business investment in India.'2. Each of the two companies agreed to pay a fee of DM 16,000 per year in consideration of the services provided by the petitioner.3. The petitioner was gr...
Tag this Judgment!U.P. State Sugar Corporation Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT310TriDel
1. These are stay applications filed with reference to the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Allahabad dated 24-2-1997.2. Learned Counsel stated that the basic issue involved is whether Modvat is admissible on Caustic Soda and Organic Surface Agents, Lubricating Oils and Greases. He stated that the appellants are the manufacturer of V.P. sugar and molasses. They had submitted Modvat credit declaration under Rule 57A/57C.3. It was his submission that as regards the caustic soda and organic surface active agent, they are/were used for general cleaning of different pipelines and other parts of the machinery through which the intermediary products pass during the manufacture of final products, Sugar and molasses and as such, it is/was being used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products sugar and molasses whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not, they were covered under the definition of inputs. The lubricating oils and greases being ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Oswal Alloys
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT91TriDel
1. In the captioned five appeals, the issue was the same and therefore they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The issue involved in the above five appeals is non-declaration of certain inputs for the purpose of taking Modvat credit.3. Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, ld. JDR appears for the Revenue whereas Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Advocate represents the respondents.4. In the Order-in-Original No. 14/CE/D/AC/91, dated 4-3-1991, the description of the inputs in the G.P.-l was M.S. Flat exceeding 5 mm in thickness and Rollable Steel Butts (M.S. Melting Scrap). Insofar as M.S. Flats exceeding 5 mm covered by Gate Pass No. 314, dated 6-3-1989 and Gate Pass No. 331, dated 24-3-1989 are concerned no declaration was filed under Rule 57G(2). I, therefore hold that no Modvat credit is allowable on these products covered by these two Gate Passes.Therefore, I confirm the order of the Assistant Collector in respect of these Gate Passes.5. Regarding Gate Pass No. 855, dat...
Tag this Judgment!Platewell Process and Chemical Vs. Commr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(102)ELT596TriDel
1. These two appeals relate to a common issue and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal in this single order.2. The appellants, among other products, manufactured "Cleaner E-12 and Cleaner E-12 (Special)". The process of manufacture was identical and consisted of blending of five inorganic chemicals in specific proportion. The classification claimed by the assessees under Heading 28.15 was approved from time to time by the department. However, on 23-2-1990, a show cause notice was issued alleging that the classification claimed was not correct and that the correct classification would be under sub-heading 3402.90. Later, show cause notices dated 14-3-1990 and 20-9-1990 were issued seeking to recover differential duty on the re-classification proposed. The Assistant Collector, in his order, rejected the claim for classification under Heading 28.15 as also the alternate plea under 3823 and held that the goods were correctly classifiable under 3402.90. He confirmed the demand fo...
Tag this Judgment!G. Claridge and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)LC345Tri(Delhi)
1. Appeal E/5630/91-A is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 31-5-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original dated 1-7-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector.Appeal E/800/92-A is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-11-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-original dated 7-3-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector. All these orders have been passed in relation to the common appellant.2. The common appellant, engaged in the manufacture of egg containers, filed price list in Part I effective from 27-11-1987, declaring the factory gate wholesale price and claiming deduction on optional packing, notional interest on receivables and handling charges. The Assistant Collector approved the price list rejecting the deductions claimed. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the appellant has filed Appeal E/5630/91-A.3. Subsequent to the passing of the approval order on the price list, it was found that a ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sakhar Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1999)(110)ELT727TriDel
1. The appellants were engaged in mining of stones. The mined stones were crushed by them in the stone crushers situated adjacent to the quarry. They filed classification list describing the goods under Heading 25.05 and claimed the benefit of the Notification No. 179/85 as amended by Notification No. 78/86-C.E. A show cause notice was issued on 7-8-1989 proposing denial of the notification on the ground that the place where the goods were manufactured was not a mine in terms of the Explanation given in the said notification. The Assistant Collector in his order held that the place of manufacture of the goods could not be treated as a mine and denied the benefit of the notification. The Collector (Appeals) held that the assessees were crushing the mine stones which activity resulted in manufacture of smaller stones which could not be termed as 'mined'. On this ground he upheld the lower orders.2. We have heard Shri K.P. Joshi, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.K. Jain, le...
Tag this Judgment!Narender Kumar and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998IIIAD(Delhi)672; AIR1998Delhi354; 73(1998)DLT302
K.S. GUPTA, J. 1. This order will govern the disposal of is 6857/95 filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff. 2. Suit was filed, inter-alia alleging that the plaintiffs are the recorded owners in possession of 3000 square yards of land comprised in Khasra No. 489/55/2 admeasuring 5 bighas and 18 bids was situated within the revenue estate of village Sheikh Sarai and bearing of Municipal No. 45, Malviya Nagar Corner, New Delhi. Part of the built up portion is being used for running business while the remaining for residence. Measurement of the plot is 180ft. x 102 ft. Suit property is situated on the road which leads from Panchsheel Park to Malviya Nagar, Sheikh Sarai and Saket and the total width of the road is 80 ft. It is alleged that opposite to the suit property Archaeological Survey of India has encroached upon a portion of the road thereby reducing the width of the road by about 15 ft. Defendant is trying to make up for 15 ft. road illegally ...
Tag this Judgment!Mark Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1998(102)ELT542(Del)
ORDERCW 1414 and CM 2418/98 :-1. In view of the short controversy arising for decision and the petition having been filed to take care of the matter of the moment, the learned Counsel for the respondents have agreed to have the matter heard finally and dispose of at this very stage.2. An affidavit sworn in by Shri B.K. Juneja, Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, who is also present in Court, has been filed. The statement made therein takes care of the grievance made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said affidavit though filed in CW 1346/98 only, may be read as an affidavit filed in the present petition also.3. Rule DB - There are a number of matters listed today for analogous hearing. The grievance raised in the petition was that an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 was filed against the order of adjudication and within the prescribed perio...
Tag this Judgment!Abner Pharmaceutical Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1998)(101)ELT93TriDel
1. This is an application for wavier of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 4,06,149/- confirmed as differential duty on the ground that the appellants herein were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 64/79-Cus. and No 142/80-Cus. since they had failed to produce the consumption certificate evidencing consumption of the imported goods i.e. Alfa-Phenyle Glycine Chloride Hydrochloride (inputs) from Holland to be used in the manufacture of Ampicillin/Amoxycillin Trihydrate.2. The learned Counsel, Shri J.S. Agarwal submits that even though the certificate as required in terms of the Notification was not produced before the adjudicating authority or the lower appellate authority, he has since been able to produce the same and since the certificate shows that the quantity of the inputs has been consumed by the appellants in the manufacture of their final product, the benefit ought to be extended and the requirement of duty demand should be waived and its recovery stayed durin...
Tag this Judgment!