Delhi Court June 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.
Sylvania and Laxman Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Reported in: (1998)(62)ECC216
1. Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of electric bulbs and tube lights. In the manufacture of the former item lead-in-wires were used for placement of the filament wire. In the manufacturing process certain quantity of such lead-in-wire and the filament wire gets waste which could not be retrieved or recycled for further manufacturing.These inputs were manufactured by the appellant and used for captive consumption without payment of duty availing exemption under Notification 217/86, dated 2-4-1986. Objection was taken by the department that such quantity of lead-in-wires and filament wire had not been used in the manufacture of electric bulbs on account of their becoming wasted product. The aforesaid exemption was not available to such quantity not used in the manufacture but rejected as waste. The Collector after going through the prescribed formalities of show cause notice and personal hearing demanded a sum of Rs. 5,22,276/- as Central Excise duty in respect of such waste an...
Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)557
ORDERB.M. KOTHARI, AM.This appeal by the assessed is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 17th Jan., 1991, for asst. yr. 1988-89.2.1. The learned counsel for the assessed submitted that the assessed furnished complete quantitative details of Gram account and Barley account before the AO. The details so furnished by the assessed were verifiable from regular books of accounts and other relevant records maintained by the assessee. In view of the smallness of amount of genuine shortage claimed by the assessee, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted the same.2.2. The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A) and also relied upon the reasons mentioned in the assessment order.2.3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned representative of the parties and have perused the orders of the Departmental authorities and the details of those two trading accounts submitted at pp 1 and 2 of the compilation. It was explained on behalf of the assessed bef...
Taru Lalvani Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)LC315Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-original dated 20th November, 1990 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The appellant made import of Meter Registers and claimed classification under Heading 90.26 of the Custom Tariff. The adjudicating authority classified the goods under Tariff Heading 90.29 of the custom tariff and also held that for the import of goods, specific import licence is required.3. Learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant submits that the goods in question are components of flow meter, he submits that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of flow meters and the meter registers imported by the appellant are used with flow meter for recording a flow of the liquids. He submits that the Tariff Entry 90.26 covers the instrument and apparatus for measuring and checking the flow of liquids and gases.4. In respect of the import licence he submits that the import registers are in the nature of counters, and these are used as component...
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sunil Synchem Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(107)ELT176TriDel
1. This is a department's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi dated 5-8-1996.2. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee are holding Registration for the manufacture of Empty Hard Shell Gelatine Capsules for the use in Pharmaceutical Industry under sub-heading No. 96.02. The assessee filed the declarations under Rule 57Q. The A.C. held that Modvat credit was not admissible on the parts of Air Conditioner and advised them not to take the Modvat credit on the parts of Air Conditioning Plant. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the adjudicating authority erred in, (i) ignoring the fact that the slightest defect in such a product could be hazardous to human life; (ii) in misinterpretating the relevant statutory provisions, and (iii) in reaching findings which were self contradictory, which ignore the factual position and which were against the spirit and language of the legal provisions and set aside the A.C's order.3. Department's contentio...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Neografiks (i)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT56TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the order of Collector (A), Bombay dated 11-10-1990.2. It appears from the records that a notice for hearing was sent to the respondents but they informed the Registry that they do not wish to appear for personal hearing and would request that the case may be decided on the basis of merits and grounds mentioned in C.O. Hence, we have gone through the records and heard the ld. DR.3. Ld. DR stated that the assessee filed a classification List No.18/89-90, dated 17-4-1989 in r/o products falling under Chapter 48 & 49. The party has classified the product 'Printed Catch Covers' under Sub-heading 4901.90 showing effective rate of duty payable at nil rate in terms of Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 40.4. The A.C. has not touched the issue of classification of printed catch covers as he has already decided it vide his Order-in-Original No. 12/ACH/ GOA/89, dated 31-1-1989 that this product is classifiable under Sub-heading No. 4819.12. Howev...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gamber Plastics
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT59TriDel
1. The respondents herein who are manufacturers of PVC Sections, and PVC Insulators, filed the classification list No. 1/89-90 with effect from 26-10-1989 classifying their products as under:------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. in Description Cen. Excise Rate of Notification No. &Classifica- Tariff duty- Datetion list S.H. No. claimed1. Split Profile 3926.90 Nil 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 as amended (Sl. No.3(1) Handle Bar i.e., 3917.00 Nil 53/88, dated 1-3-1988 PVC Section as amended [Sl. No. 26(ii)]3(3) PVC Sleeves in 3917.00 Nil -do- different shapes3(4) PVC Insulators 3917.00 Nil -do- (Sleeves) On scrutiny of the classification list, it appeared that split profile was nothing but PVC sheet (flexible) and the other product did not conform to the description of tubes, pipes and hoses contained in Note 8 of Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to them proposing classification of product a...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT863TriDel
1. The assessees manufacture tubes. They had claimed that capacitors, which are parts of electrical resistance, purchased by them, qualified under Rule 57Q as capital goods. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the following observation : "Capacitors are parts of Electrical Resistance welding plants stated by the party. They have, however, not elaborated in their defence as to how capacitors can be treated as capital goods as defined under Rule 57Q ibid. In fact, capacitors are parts of the electric motors which are used to run the machines. An electric motors in no way is used either for processing or producing the final products. In the case of the party, capacitors appear to have been used in the electric motors attached with the Electrical Resistance welding plant. Thus, the electric motors cannot be treated as components/accessories of the E.R.W. Plant within the meaning of Rule 57Q ibid and consequently the capacitors are also not capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q a...
Tapex Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1998
Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT580TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed with reference to the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore dated 22-11-1990.2. The appellants have sent a letter dated 11-3-1997 requesting for a decision on merits. Accordingly, we have perused the papers and heard learned DR.3. The appellants have stated in their written submissions that they are manufacturer of self-adhesive electrical insulating tapes of plastics. The department during the material period has contended that it is classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3919.00 as against their contention that it falls under Chapter Heading 8546.00. In support of their contention, they relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chetna Polycoats (P) Ltd. reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 253 and in the case of Intek Tapes Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal). The Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum issued Trade Notice No. 78/91, dated 5-9-1991 wherein it is clarified that self-adhesive electrical insulating tapes ...
Jalan Steel Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT211TriDel
1. The issue in these two Stay Petitions is the same i.e. determination of annual production capacity of Rolling Mill.2. Shri Amit Avasti, the ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants, submits that the applicants had affected changes in some of the parameters which are considered necessary for determining the actual production capacity with effect from 7-11-1997. He submits that with this change, their production capacity, which was fixed as effective from 1-9-1997, was drastically changed. He submits that ld.Commissioner (Appeals) brushed this contention aside on the ground that the change is cosmetic in nature without giving any opportunity to the applicants to prove their contention that the parameters for determining the annual production capacities have undergone a drastic change. He submits that in the absence of an opportunity of personal hearing and explaining the changes in the factors, have led to miscarriage of justice and prays that the order of the Commissioner may be st...
Rohit Prakash Goyal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Del)510
ORDERJ.P. BENGRA, J.M.These are three appeals by the assessed against common order of the CIT(A)XII, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, and the issues have been disposed of by the CIT(A) by a consolidated order, thereforee, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are also disposed of by this common order.3. The assessed has raised 14 grounds challenging validity of the reopening of assessments under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, for these three years and also the view of the CIT(A) that the sales transaction made to his HUF, is sham transaction and thereby confirming the recasting of the P&L; a/c and determining the total income at Rs. 12,92,080, Rs. 13,52,290 and Rs. 29,64,200 for the asst. yrs. 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 vide assessment order dt. 29th March, 1996, instead of income declared and accepted by intimation under s. 143(1)(a) at Rs. 5,52,80, Rs. 2,34,290 and Rs. 2,30,950 for the as...