Delhi Court July 1998 Judgments

Dhvani Terefabs (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(105)ELT162TriDel

1. Learned Advocate Shri V. Sridharan prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of Rs. 7,47,9827-demanded as duty and Rs. 4 lakhs imposed as personal penalty.2. He submits that the applicants are manufacturing grey knitted pile fabrics and sent them to a processor. After receiving the processed fabric on payment of duty, they cut the fabrics. Then those fabrics, as cut by them, are sent to job workers for stitching and hemming which, according to the learned Advocate, brings into existence towels and napkins. However, he submits the adjudicating authority has held that cutting of fabrics itself before stitching and hemming, brings into existence towels and napkins and therefore those goods are liable to duty as made-up articles' under Tariff Heading 63.01 is the finding of the adjudicating authority. He submits that this finding of the adjudicating authority flies in the face of statutory definition of the expression "made-up" in Section Note 5 of Section XI of the CETA, 19...

Shakti Overseas Commercial Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT150TriDel

1. The appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 492/90-BCH, dated 12-3-1990 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay upholding the order-in-original dated 24-1-1989 passed by Deputy Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay whereby the latter had confiscated a consignment of Vapo Print Transfer Paper imported by the appellant from Taiwan on the ground that the value thereof had been misdeclared. The import was of 23,550 sheets and the invoice dated 15-11-1988 produced for the clearance of the goods showed the price as US $ 0.15 per sheet FOB Taiwan. The value appeared to be low and the Customs House issued a show cause notice proposing enhancement of price on the basis of the price of US $ 1.75 per sheet FOB Taiwan which price was as per the proforma invoice dated 20-10-1988 of another supplier from Taiwan and a quotation dated 4-10-1988 from a third supplier from the same country. The declared value of Rs. 59,673 /- was enhanced to Rs. 6,90,851/- and the duty so...

Jagson International Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(162)ELT1002TriDel

1. The issue involved in the appeal is whether penalty is imposable on M/s. Jagson International Ltd. under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the ground that they had made a wilful misstatement to the Customs Authorities and got the Aircraft cleared from the Customs without payment of duty.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Druk Air Corporation for purchase of two Dornier Aircraft; that they applied to Civil Aviation authorities to operate an Air Taxi Service in India on 14-6-1990 and got the permission for the same on 20-7-1990; that they had requested the Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) for urgent permission to fly the Aircraft in India on foreign registration and got the permission on 10-10-1991. The Aircraft reached IGI Airport New Delhi on 15-10-1991 and the appellants under their letter dated 14-10-1991 and 16-10-1991 requested for duty free clearance under the provisions of Rule 58(6)(a) of the Indian Aircraft Rules...

Anil Fireworks Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)LC201Tri(Delhi)

1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal dated 12-7-1990 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Cochin rejecting the appeal filed before him challenging the Order-in-Original, dated 3-10-1989 passed by Assistant Collector of Customs (A.P.) Cochin in terms of which he had rejected the refund claim filed by the appellant seeking refund of the differential duty paid on a second-hand colour offset printing machine with standard accessories. The refund claim arose as a result of the Custom House rejecting the declared invoice value of 800000 Swedish Kroner (SWK for short) and instead adopting 855000 SWK which was arrived at by granting deduction of 62% on the price of SWK 225,000, the price for a new machine, the quantum of depreciation being worked out after allowing of 46% for 4 years and applying 2% per quarter for the period beyond 4 years. Depreciation has been allowed for the period from the year 1982 as the machine was a 1982 Model to the time of import in August 1988. The ap...

Perfect Forgings Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT142TriDel

1. These four appeals filed by the assessees relate to correct classification of grinding media balls. The Commissioner has held that their correct classification is 7308.90 while the appellants contended that they were correctly classifiable under 7208. At the relevant time, these headings read as under: - "7208. Pieces roughly shaped by rolling or forging of iron or steel, not elsewhere specified." 7308 Other articles of iron or steel 7308.10 - Bottom stools, stirring or poking rods, splash Nil plates and troughs as are used in the factory of production in the manufacture of steel ingots and melted either during or [later] such use in the said factory 7308.20 - Chain and parts thereof, of iron or steel 15% 7308.30 Nails, tacks, drawing pins, corrugated nails, 15% staples (other than those of Heading No. 83.05) and similar articles of iron or steel, whether or not with heads of other material, but excluding such articles with heads of copper - Rivets, cotters, cotter-pins, washers (i...

Mool Raj Singh and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. These are appeals by assessees against orders of CIT, Meerut passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, pertaining to asst. yr. 1985-86.Since appeals relate to one group of persons, in which there are common partners and the CIT has given basically same reasoning in all these cases, therefore, for the sake of convenience these appeals are being disposed of by this common order.While examining the records of these assessees the CIT, Meerut was of the view that the orders passed under s. 185(1) r/w s. 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the Revenue........ (sic) "2. The share of each partner, capital employed, profit earned and gift made either to Mool Raj Singh or his family members is as under :----------------------------------------------------------------------S. Name of Ratio Profit Capital GiftedNo. the partner employed Amount----------------------------------------------------------------------6. Shiv Kumar 43% 37,496 45,934 5,000-------------...

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Attarpal Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)119; 74(1998)DLT543; 1998(103)ELT483(Del)

ORDERJ.B. Goel, J.1. By this revision the petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) challenged the legality and propriety of and seeks setting aside of the order dated 11.6.1998 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (A.S.J.) whereby the respondent-accused has been admitted to bail for an offence under 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act (the 'Act').2. The facts alleged in brief are that the officers of DRI, Delhi on 2.5.1998 recovered/seized smuggled ball bearings (a) worth Rs. 39,15,200/- from in front of go down-cum-residence of one Tej Vir Singh, located at Gali No. 3, R-Block, Vikas Nagar (2) worth Rs. 46,00,065/- from a godown located at 496, Parmanand Colony and (3) worth Rs. 57,53,900/- from a godown situated at 18, Yograj Colony, Delhi i.e. in all totalling to Rs. 1,42,69,165/-. The respondent and one Dhiraj Singh in their statements alleged to have been made voluntarily under Section 108 of the Act admitted the aforesaid recovery and seizure and some facts of their conce...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Smt. Sarita Bhushan

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)369; 74(1998)DLT808; 1998(46)DRJ767

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This CM (M) has been filed against an order of remand in House Tax Appeal No. 221/94 for the reason that the valuation report and the objections filed by the respondent had not been considered. Moreover, the most disputed point relates to 'inclusion of cost price of unexploited portion of plot'. In this background, the learned District Judge passed an order of remand to 're-assess afresh after considering the objection of the appellant and in the light of the aforesaid judgment'.2. Learned counsel for MCD Ms. Madhu Tewatia submitted that this judgment of Naresh Kumar Vs . UOI, : 56(1994)DLT746 relied upon by the learned District Judge has been set aside in MCD & Ors. Vs . Naresh Kumar & Ors., : [1997]2SCR869 . From the perusal of the judgment of MCD & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (supra), in SLP arising out of the judgment and order of this High Court in CWP 937/94, it is seen that in that case it has been held that though clause (c) exempts 'agricultural lands ...

Daya NaraIn Khatri and ors. Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 75(1998)DLT390; 1998(46)DRJ850

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This FAO is directed against an order on review application dated 19th March 1998 whereby the learned Additional District Judge modified his order on substitution application, and deleted the condition of filing succession certificate or letter of administration. 2. In proceedings under Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the claimant expired on 26th April 1993. An application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased Kishan Lal was allowed 'subject to producing the letter of administration/succession certificate with respect to the claim amount in question on or before the final hearing in this case, failing which the application will be dismissed'. 3. This condition was removed by the order dated 19th March 1998 by passing the following operative portion of the order: '...In view of above discussion the order 10.7.96 is modified to the extent that direction to produce succession certificate/Letter of Adm...

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. M/S. Aries Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)372; 74(1998)DLT823; 1998(46)DRJ654

ORDERS.N. Kapoor, J. 1. This CM (M) has been filed against an order of remand in House Tax Appeal No. 205/96.2. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:'The case is remanded for assessment afresh in the light of the above observations with the directions to the Assessing Officer to afford due and proper opportunity of being beard to the appellant and make a reasoned order within a reasonable period.'3. Learned counsel for MCD Ms. Madhu Tewatia submitted that this judgment of Naresh Kumar Vs . UOI, : 56(1994)DLT746 relied upon by the learned District Judge has been set aside in MCD & Ors. Vs . Naresh Kumar & Ors., : [1997]2SCR869 . From the perusal of the judgment of MCD & Ors. v. Naresh Kumar & Ors., (supra), in SLP arising out of the judgment and order of this High Court in CWP 937/94, it is seen that in that case it has been held that though clause (c) exempts 'agricultural lands and buildings from the levy imposed by Section 115(4). Clause (c), however, contains a...