Delhi Court June 1998 Judgments

A-one Cycles Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit Vs. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 Itr 323 (Sc ...

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. The appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1992-93.2. The only ground raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 77,42,530 out of the claim of deduction of Rs. 94,97,000 under s. 80HHC of the IT Act.2.1. The facts, in brief, as borne out from the records are that the assessee-company carried on business of manufacture of engineering machinery and manufacture and export of leather garments. Both these business activities were carried out separately as engineering division and leather garment division. Leather division was in Delhi whereas the engineering division was functioning at Sahibabad. The leather division primarily dealt in export of manufactured and trading leather garments.The assessee-company claimed deduction under s. 80HHC of Rs. 94,97,000 and in support the audit report in Form No. 10CCAC had been filed. The AO, however, allowed the claim under s. 80HHC to the e...

Eastern Leather Products (P.) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)68ITD358(Delhi)

1. The appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals) for the Assessment Year 1992-93.2. The only ground raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 77,42,530 out of the claim of deduction of Rs. 94,97,000 under Section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act.2.1 The facts, in brief, as borne out from the records are that the assessee-company carried on business of manufacture of engineering machinery and manufacture and export of leather garments. Both these business activities were carried out separately as engineering division and leather garment division. Leather division was in Delhi whereas the engineering division was functioning at Sahibabad. The leather division primarily dealt in export of manufacturing and trading leather garments. The assessee-company claimed deduction under Section 80HHC of Rs. 94,97,000 and in support the audit report in Form No. 10CCAC had been filed. The Assessing Officer...

Cc Vs. Rainbow Fountains

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(79)LC375Tri(Delhi)

I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions made. In the order cited the Tribunal has inter alia held that the fountain submersible pumps imported by the appellants for being fitted in fountains cannot be treated as consumer goods as defined in para 7(12) of Import Export Policy, 1992-97, as such pumps require further processing and are required to be fitted into the decorative fountains, and cannot be used as such. It was held that the said goods were therefore freely importable and did not require a licence for their import. As the aforesaid order of Cegat (sic) the issue involved in the present Appeal, I set aside the (sic) confiscation and levy of penalty on the ground of goods being restricted for import and allow the appeals.Being aggrieved by this order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the Respondents herein imported 2 consignments of submersible pumps and nozzles for fountains. The Assistant ...

Oriental Carpet Manufacturers Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(106)ELT229TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Oriental Carpet Manufacturers (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'OCM'), the matter relates to the classification of the mixed fabrics containing polyester and wool. The appellants had declared the wool content in the mixed fabrics as 28% while the Revenue on the basis of the test results had determined the wool content in the said fabrics as more than 30%. The mixed fabrics with wool content of more than 30% were classifiable as wool fabrics.If the wool content was less than 30% then the mixed fabrics were classifiable as man-made fabrics. Before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), the appellants had pleaded that applying the tolerance limit even according to the test results the wool content in the fabric under dispute will be below 30%. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) did not agree with the contentions of the OCM. The duty involved in these proceedings is Rs. 8,873.50 only.2. We have heard Shri R. Sudhinder, Advocate for the ap...

India Polycoats (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT435TriDel

1. This is a prayer for waiving the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 73,62,292 /- and penalty of Rs. 75,62,292 /- and staying their recovery pending disposal of the Appeal.2. Arguing the stay petition, Shri G. Shiva Das, the ld. Advocate appearing for the Applicant, submits that the Applicants are engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, coated cotton fabrics; that one of the raw materials used in the manufacture of the fabric is yarn; that the applicants purchased the yarn from several suppliers; that they filed declarations under Rule 57G declaring the yarn as raw materials, the grey fabric as intermediate product and the coated fabric as the final product; that the Applicants sent the yarn for conversion into fabric to several job workers; that the applicants received the yarn in their factory, took credit of duty paid on the yarn, sent the yarn to Job Workers under the cover of Rule 57F(3) Challan after due intimation to the Department; that the Applicants received the fabric back fro...

Pravesh Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC147Tri(Delhi)

1. When this stay application was heard, it appeared that at this stage, the main appeal itself, would be disposed of. With the consent of both sides, this was done after giving unconditional stay and waiver of the sums involved.2. There was a delay of 4 days in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner. An application for condonation was moved in which the claim was made that the appellants' Counsel had suffered Angina pain resulting in the delay. The Commissioner, in his order, observed that the appellants had not produced evidence such as medical certificate or a certificate of hospitalisation of their Counsel to prove the point.On unsufficiency of the ground mentioned, the Commissioner held the appeal as barred by limitation and dismissed the same.3. I have heard Shri A. Awasthi, ld. Counsel for the appellants and Shri Nayyar, ld. DR for the Revenue.4. A statement by the Counsel should be given due weightage by the quasi-judicial authorities. If a statement is made that the Cou...

M. Khajulal and Company Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(103)ELT424TriDel

1. This appeal is against confiscation of one parcel containing 55.40 Carats of cut and polished diamonds. The ground for confiscation is that "the goods were imported after a period of 5 years from its exportation and the parcel was found to be without any seals of foreign Customs or Indian Customs and without any certificate from foreign Customs regarding its custody. The identity of the goods cannot be established and as such Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked. The importers have failed to produce valid import licence for the clearance of the parcel and as such, the goods are liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of Imports and Export (Control) Act, 1947." 2. It has been submitted in appeal that the adjudication order is without any legal authority. The consignment had earlier been confiscated and in an appeal proceeding vide Order-in-Appeal No.1958/88-BCH, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had ordered the...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Meattie

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)68ITD286(Delhi)

1. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Agra, by means of this Reference Application under section 27(1) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 requires us to refer the following question, said to be a question of law arising out the order under section 27(6) of Wealth-tax Act, 1957 passed by the Tribunal in WTA No. 1580/Del/83 for A.Y. 197-78 :- Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was applicable for Assessment Year 1977-78 retrospectively ?" 2. This Reference Application under section 27(1) filed by the Revenue is a glaring instance of frivolous application filed by the Ld.Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Agra. The Revenue's appeal being WTA No.1580/Del/83 was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15-1-1985.The Department filed a Reference Application against the said order on 23-3-1985. The Tribunal forwarded a statement of the case dated 26th July, 1985 and referred the question of law arising out of their order dated 15-1-1985 to the Hon'ble High Court....

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Deccan Rubber Solution Mfg. Co.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT843TriDel

1. The issue in dispute is classification of rubber solution; according to the department the classification would be under GET 4005.00, while according to the assessee, the classification of the solution is under GET 3506.00.2. We have heard Shri H.K. Jain, learned DR and perused the Tribunal's Order Nos. 828-830/90-C, dated 26-7-1990 in which the Tribunal has held that rubber solution manufactured by the respondents is classifiable under subheading 3506.00. The Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Elgi Polytex Ltd. The Revenue has not been able to establish that order in the case of the same respondent is distinguishable or that the order since been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we see no error in the order of the Collector (Appeals) who has followed the Tribunal's decision. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal....

Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT564TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd., Ludhiana the benefit of Notification No. 53/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 on the stocks of viscose staple fibre lying in stock as on 1-3-1989 with the appellants when the aforesaid Notification No. 53/87-C.E. was amended vide Notification No. 53/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1990 (sic) was denied. Under Notification No. 53/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987, as amended, concessional rate of excise duty was prescribed in favour of artificial staple fibre and tow classifiable under sub-heading 5202.00 subject to the following conditions :- (i) sudi artificial staple fibre and tow was to be used for blending with cotton in the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under Heading No. 52t03; (ii) if the use of artificial staple fibre and tow was elsewhere than in the factory of production of such artificial staple fibre and tow then the procedure as set-out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was followed.The appellants were availing the benefit...