Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1998]234ITR691(Delhi)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. These three references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, made at the instance of the Revenue raise the following common question of law arising out of the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing weighted deduction in respect of expenses on packing and forwarding and import license fee under Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. From the statement of facts it is disclosed that the assessed had incurred expenses on packing and forwarding. The assessed had also incurred expenses on import license fee. The assessed claimed entitlement for weighted deduction in respect of the said expenses which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The assessed preferred appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner with whom the plea of the assessed prevailed and the assessed was held entitled to weighted deduction on both the counts. The Revenue pref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
A.P. Chowdhary, President: 1. Brief facts in the case are that the appellant- complainant in the District Forum held a locker with the opposite party Bank. Complainant operated the locker on 16th May, 1991. It came to notice of the Bank on 18th May, 1991, upon a report by holder of a locker close to that of the complainant, that the locker of the complainant was not properly locked. The Bank Manager got the strong room locked and called the complainant from her house. Her locker was opened in the presence of Bank officials. The locker was found to contain bundles of currency notes and Indira Vikas Patras. 2. Dispute has arisen because complainant contends that jewellery worth about Rs. 70,000/- was missing from the locker. She further states under the relevant rules Bank officials were supposed to examine every day if the lockers that were operated during the course of the day had been properly locked and a certificate to that effect is to be appended by the said official. Bank officia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(107)ELT164TriDel
1. This is a Reference Application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh with reference to the Final Order Nos. A/981 to 984/97-NB, dated 12-9-1997 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/320, E/341-343/96-NB filed by M/s. Amrit Paper & two Others.2. By the said order the Tribunal had, following the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE and Ors.decisions held that Modvat credit will be admissible of Felt Cloth and Wire netting used in or in relation to the manufacture of Paper and Paper Boards, including Paper products. Commissioner in the Reference Application has stated that the Department had not accepted the Tribunal decision on the said question and had filed Reference Application. The said Reference Application was accepted by the Tribunal in Order No. A/83-85/96, dated 31-10-1996. On similar issue, the Department's two other Reference Applications had also been accepted by the Tribunal and referred to the Punjab & Haryana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT251TriDel
The appellants herein imported "MU metal Lamination U Type" having a composition of 78% Nickel and having thickness of 0.2 mm. The goods were assessed under Customs Tariff Heading 75.03 at the rate of 60% + 20% + CVD Nil.2. The Department however felt that the goods have been under assessed because the correct classification according to the show cause notice dated 7-7-1982, issued within 6 months of the date of payment of duty, was Tariff Heading 85.15 carrying a rate of duty of 100% + 25% + CVD 20% + 5%.3. On 13-8-1982 the appellants submitted a reply to that show cause notice dated 7-7-1982 and pointed out that the goods under import did not fall under Tariff Heading 85.15.4. It appears that the Revenue shifted its stand and issued another show cause notice dated 19-5-1993 with reference to their earlier show cause notice dated 7-7-1982 suggesting classification under various heading such as :- It is the said show cause notice which was adjudicated by the Asstt.Collector of Customs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(62)ECC620
1. Respondents herein are engaged in the manufacture of Pan Masala with tobacco, in their factory at Noida. The product is marketed through a network of dealers situated in different States all over the country and the dealers in turn resell the goods to various customers. Prior to 18-2-1991 respondents were effecting their sales from the factory directly to the dealers located in various States; however, subsequently they effected clearances by way of stock transfer after payment of duty from the Noida factory to the duty-paid godowns and from the duty paid godowns, the goods were being sold by the respondents to dealers in various States. The respondents had filed price lists in Part I for sales to be made by them to the dealers located in various States. One price list was filed for each State.Different assessable value were being claimed by the respondents for different States.2. The Assistant Collector disallowed the deduction claimed on account of regional discount; however, low...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1998)(104)ELT415TriDel
1. When the stay application came up for hearing, it was found that the main appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. Both sides consenting, this was done after granting unconditional stay and waiver of the duty and penalty confirmed.2. I have heard Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri Y.R. Kilania, ld. DR. for the Revenue.3. The appellants manufactured sugar. They filed a declaration for availing of Modvat credit of duty paid on listed capital goods. Serial No. 3 of the declaration reads as under :- 4. Thereafter, the assessees received ERWFC Ansteel Tubes falling under Heading 7306.90. Show cause notice dated 2-4-1997 alleged that these goods were not mentioned in the declaration. The Assistant Commissioner in his order disallowed the Modvat credit and also imposed penalty on the assessees. In doing so, he observed that taking credit on ERWFC Ansteel Tubes under heading of boiler tubes was of far fetched proposition. He held that description of the good...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(105)ELT702TriDel
1. These 3 appeals filed by the Revenue involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. The issue in two of the appeals viz. E 72356/93-C and E/1252/95-C is whether the respondents herein who are manufacturers inter alia of di-ammonium phosphate, ammonium sulphate and urea, are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty of Rs. 5/- per kilo litre under Notification 75/84, dated 1-3-1984 in respect of raw naphtha utilised in the manufacture of the above mentioned products while, the issue in the third appeal viz. E/1937/94-C is the eligibility to exemption from duty in terms of Notification 81/75 for sulphuric acid used by the respondents in the manufacture of the same above mentioned final products.2. The Revenue is of the view that the concessional rate of duty/exemption from duty is applicable only if raw naphtha and sulphuric acid are used in the manufacture of fertilizers cleared as soil fertilizers, and since the respondents admit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1999)(112)ELT560TriDel
1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 26-4-1990 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (A), Bombay.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel round bars/C.T.D. bars of the size 6 mm and 16 mm thickness. They are drawing the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983. The Range Superintendent observed that none of the inputs used by the appellants for the manufacture of iron and steel rounds bars could be treated as inputs mentioned in the Notification No. 208/83-C.E., dated 1-8-1983 and accordingly issued a show cause notice demanding the duty of Rs. 98,896.75. This was confirmed by the Assistant Collector. In the appeal, it was the contention of the assessee before the first appellate authority that it was to be examined whether the raw material used by the appellants was waste and scrap within the meaning of definition provided under Tariff Item 25. The Collector (Appeals) has...
Tag this Judgment!