Delhi Court August 1998 Judgments

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. U. R. Polyurethene Products (P) ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (1999)64TTJ(Del)507

ORDERAMS Moksh Mahajan, AMThese two appeals filed both by the Revenue as well by the assessed are consolidated and disposed of by a single order. Appeals containing common issues relate to assessment year 1989-90.2. At the outset it may be pointed out that none appeared on behalf of the assessed despite notice having been sent through registered post. On perusal of the order sheet we further find that the appeals have been fixed right from the year 1996 onwards. Considering the several opportunities allowed, we proceed to dispose of appeals ex parte qua assessed but on merits. The submissions of the learned departmental Representative and the paper book submitted by the assessed are taken into consideration while disposing of the appeals.3. Taking up the Revenue's appeal in ITA No. 599/Del/1992 first, we filed that the first contention raised relates to disallowance of loss of Rs. 30,000 claimed by the assessee. The facts in brief are that the assessee- company who is having its factor...

Union of India Vs. M.L. Dhar

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

A.P. Chowdhri, President: 1. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. M.L. Dhar-complainant, was a resident of Rawal Puri, Sri Nagar in the State of J and K. In 1990, he alongwith members of the family, migrated from Sri Nagar to Delhi on account of terrorist activities there. On 4.6.1993 he applied for shifting his telephone to Delhi. Alongwith the application, he filed the bill cleared up to the date of application. Even though, the telephone had not been used since 1990 and the complainant had applied in July, 1991 to disconnect the telephone and it was actually dis-connected on 27.10.1990. Impleaded in the complaint were Union of India through Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Communications, General Manager (Telecommunication) Kashmir Province, Sri Nagar, Chief General Manager, J and K Telecom Centre and the General Manager MTNL, New Delhi. The complainant did not press for any relief against MTNL, New Delhi. 2. The plea of opposite parties 1 to 3 was that for is...

Corona Cosmetics and Chem. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(111)ELT641TriDel

1. Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of Plus detergent cakes, filed price list No. 133/91 in Part-IV with effect from 31-12-1990 in respect of goods to be sold at the depot in West Bengal and Bihar declaring the prices of 125 gms. and 250 gms. at Rs. 134.10 and Rs. 137.27 per carton respectively. It was found that in price list No. 132/90-91 in Part I, also effective from 31-12-1990 and applicable to clearances made at the factory gate at Kanpur in U.P. State, the prices declared were Rs. 150.39 and Rs. 148.76 respectively. A letter was issued to the appellant pointing out the above circumstances and proposing to approve the price list No. 133/90-91 adopting higher prices declared and approved in price list No. 132/90-91. Though the appellant resisted the letter, the Assistant Collector confirmed the proposal and his order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence the present appeal.2. Factory gate sales were confined to dealers in U.P. State. The dispute in the present...

Dawar Footwear Inds. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT549TriDel

The appellants herein imported ironing and conditioning machine Italian make Model ERC 187 from Italy. A question has arisen about its classification whether it falls under Tariff Heading 84.18 or under Tariff Heading 84.53. Tariff Heading 84.18 pertains to "Refrigerator, freezer and other refrigerating, freezing equipment...". On the other hand 84.53 relates, inter alia, to "Machinery for making or repairing footwear or other articles of hides, skins or leather, other than sewing machines".2. It has come on record that this machine brings down the temperature to -20C and in the process of manufacture of shoes, it conditions the shoes so that the shoes are taken off shoe-lasts and the shoe does not get deformed. This function is explained at page 70 of the appeal papers in the following words :- "This machine is commonly known as Ironing and Conditioning Machine because when shoes are passed through this machine the stresses of leather are reduced. Also counters, toe puffs become hard...

Sahi Export House Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(112)ELT1019TriDel

1. Sole question involved in this appeal is regarding the classification of goods described as "Industrial Sewing Machine head with standard accessories" of different models. Lower authorities have classified the motor operating the machine head seperately on merits.It is that classification which is contested by the appellants before us. It is their contention that motors will go alongwith the sewing machine head and would also be assessable in Tariff Heading 84.52.2. We observe that this issue is decided in favour of appellant in another case dealt with by Tribunal in the matter of Vishal Exports v.C.C.E. Bombay vide Final Order No. C/2947-48/97, dated 9-12-1997 -1998 (103) E.L.T. 74 (Tribunal). Accordingly we hold that the electric motors for various models of the industrial sewing machines will also be under Tariff Heading 84.52.3. In view of the aforesaid findings impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with the consequential relief to the appellant....

Kirti Kumar Muljibhai Parikh Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(159)ELT1139TriDel

1. In this appeal the short point involved is whether penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules is imposable on the appellants, being Commercial Officer, for non-accountal of finished excisable goods.2. The Appellants Shri Kirti Kumar Muljibhai Parikh under his letter dated 6-1-98 has requested to dispose of the appeal on merits. We heard the ld. SDR and perused the records. Ld. SDR submitted that only penalty of Rs. 1,000/- has been imposed on the appellant as he was concerned with day to day affairs of the company.3. After considering the submissions of the ld. DR and perusing the records we find that the Additional Collector has not given any findings in the impugned order before imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellant. Under the provision of Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules before penalty is imposed a conscious knowledge to the fact the goods are liable to confiscation has to be shown. In the absence of any findings by the adjudicating authority in the ...

Binani Zinc Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1998)(104)ELT521TriDel

1. In this case Modvat credit availed on Vandadium Pentoxide and utilised for payment of duty on Zinc has been held to be inadmissible and quantum of credit has been directed to be recovered. The appellants have requested for decision on merits and hence we have heard the ld.D.R. and perused the record.2. The Appellants filed declaration on 8-3-1990 for availing Modvat credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A in which they declared Vanadium Pentoxide as inputs "Catalysts" for manufacturing Sulphuric Acid.However, it was found that they had utilised the credit on the inputs for payment of duty on Zinc. The Assistant Commissioner after examining the process of manufacture and the Technical write up, concluded that Vanadium Pentoxide is utilised as catalyst for the purpose of converting Sulphur dioxide in residue to Sulphuric Acid and was not utilised in or in relation the manufacture of Zinc but only used for converting and processing of Sulphuric Acid to avert atmospheric pollution. His...

Exim Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT995TriDel

1. These appeals are directed against common Order-in-Appeal Nos.112-114/92, dated 9-12-1992 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi confirming three separate adjudication orders dated 5-10-1992, 6-11-1992 and 9-11-1992 respectively of the Deputy Collector of Customs, New Delhi, whereby CIF value of four different consignments of garbage of USA origin imported by the appellant was increased to US $ 225 PMT from the declared FOB value of US $ 53.41, 44.8 and 44.09 PMT.2. It is stated that the municipal garbage of New Jersey State, USA was being taken over by a contractor who would sell the same either in unsorted or sorted condition. Bills of Entry dated 24-8-1992, 3-9-1992, 28-10-1992 and 30-10-1992 filed by the appellant described the goods as 'garbage' consisting of plastic waste with Metal, Paper, Glass, Dirt etc. According to the appellant, garbage was in compressed form. Goods were physically examined in the Custom House. It was found that the scrap imported by the...

income-tax Officer Vs. Smt. Premlata Manohar

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1999)69ITD248(Delhi)

1. In both the appeals filed by the revenue against the same assessee's order of the CIT(Appeals), Meerut dated 17-1-1992 has been agitated on the basis of following two grounds :- "(i) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the surplus as long term capital gain as against assessed as adventure in nature of trade. (ii) That the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in allowing interest of Rs. 28,920 which has a mere provision and nothing was brought on record that interest had been demanded." 2. The assessee in the cross-objections has supported the order of the CIT(Appeals).3. Since the issues involved in both the appeals as well as the cross-objections are common, so we proceed to dispose of all these appeals as well as the cross-objections by this consolidated order.4. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative as well as the assessee's counsel but before considering the submissions advanced by the parties, we would like...

Pran Nath Lekhi and anr. Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Foundation and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1998VAD(Delhi)181; AIR1999Delhi40; 1999(48)DRJ775

ORDERS.K. Mahajan, J.1. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be interested in the Trust known as Rajiv Gandhi Foundation have filed this application seeking leave of the court to institute the suit for a declaration that there was breach of the express trust created for public purpose and violation of Section 20 of the Trust Act,1882 in the working of the Trust. The plaintiffs have also sought directions of this Court to direct inquiry into the affairs and accounts of the Trust as also into the corpus of the Trust. The plaintiffs also want this Court to examine not only the working of the Trust but also to ascertain the expenditure incurred by defendant no.2 on the education of defendant no.3 and also to remove some of the Trustees who are alleged to be unfit to continue as Trustees.2. Before the plaintiffs addressed arguments on the merits of the suit and as to whether any case had been made out for leave of the court to institute the suit, this court inquired from the plaintiffs as ...