Delhi Court February 2000 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.
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seth Talwar and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR190(Delhi)
1. These are references under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the Revenue. The assessment years under reference are 1968-69 and 1969-70. The following question has been referred for opinion of this court :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not correct in clubbing the income of the two firms consisting of the same partners with the same profit-sharing ratio formed only for the execution of two different contracts ?'2. As per the facts recorded in the statement of case the assessee-firm executed two contracts of building at Pathankot and Yol Camp. Thenumber of partners and share ratio in the two firms was the same in respect of both the contracts. The nature of contract was also the same. Two separate returns of income were filed for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 showing separate income from building construction at two different places....
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. D.S. Bist and Sons
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-14-2000
Reported in: [2000]243ITR179(Delhi)
1. This is a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with respect to the assessment year 1967-68 at the instance of the Revenue. As per the statement of the case, the assessed is a registered firm engaged in exploitation of forests. It also derives income from tea estates and other sources. The assessed had claimed Rs. 31,911 as a revenue loss on sale of investments. The assessor's contention was that these investments were pledged with the various District Forest Officers as security and these were, thereforee, business assets. It was stated that after release these were given to banks against overdrafts and were thereafter sold. According to the assessee, the security against the performance of contract should be taken as business stock and not capital stock. The Assessing Officer did not accept this contention raised on behalf of the assessed and did not allow the said claim as a revenue loss.2. In the first appeal against the said order, the decision of the Asse...
Aaa Fun-n-food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT681TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the valuation of ice-cream. The appellant was charging forwarding charges from the buyers. The impugned order has confirmed duty demand on such forwarding charges despite the explanation of the appellant that it included aftersales service charges, transportation charges and packing charges which are permissible deductions. The appellant had also submitted that goods were transported through small vehicles to the buyers. The impugned order rejected the appellant's submissions holding that the explanation of the appellant appeared to be an afterthought to escape duty liability. The order also notes mat the fact that forwarding charges included packing, transportation and after-sales service charges was never informed by the appellant to the department. The order also notes the inability of the appellant to produce the L.R. to substantiate the claim of transportation cost.2. The appellant has contended that there is no basis for the inclusion of t...
Uni Products (i) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT325TriDel
1. The above mentioned appeals were taken up for hearing together since they raised a common issue for consideration. The issue relates to classification of carpets/floor coverings covered by Chapter 57 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. S/Shri L.P. Asthana, ld. Advocate and R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Swamy, Senior Advocate and Shri A.K. Prasad, SDR appeared for the Revenue.3. The assessees, contention in both cases was that the goods were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5703.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 whereas the Department has taken the view that the item was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5703.90.Uni Products (I) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi.Appellants are manufacturers of carpets/floor coverings of jute. They sell these carpets under different names like Umang, Utsav, Tarang, Divine, Expo and Pragati. All the varieties of these carpets, according to the appellants, have one basic...
Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT134TriDel
1. In the instant case, appellant/manufacturer uses the mould supplied by the customer in manufacturing the finished product. The question that has been canvassed before us is whether the cost of mould must have any relation to the value of the finished goods. According to the appellant, when the mould is supplied by the customer, the value of the mould is not to be reckoned in finding out the assessable value of the finished product. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Bench of the West Regional Bench in the case of C.C.E., Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1999 (85) ECR 94. In that decision the Bench observed : "If the customer supplies his own moulds to a bottle manufacturer for making a specific number of bottles and returned thereafter, there is no doubt that such cost of moulds would not have to be included." 2. According to the learned D.R., this observation made by the West Regional Bench is in conflict with an earlier decision of this Tribunal in F...
Uni Products (i) Ltd. and ors. Vs. Cce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(92)LC103Tri(Delhi)
1. The above mentioned appeals were taken up for hearing together since they raised a common issue for consideration. The issue relates to classification of carpets/floor coverings covered by Chapter 57 of Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. S/Shri L. P. Asthana, ld. Advocate and R. Swaminathan, ld.Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Swamy, Senior Advocate and Shri A. K. Prasad, SDR appeared for the Revenue.3. The assessees, contention in both cases was that the goods were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5703.20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,. 1985 whereas the Department has taken the view that the item was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 5703.90.Appellants are manufacturers of carpets/floor coverings of jute. They sell these carpets under different names like Umang, Utsav, Tarang, Divine, Expo and Pragati. All the varieties of these carpets, according to the appellants, have one basic feature viz., the basic fabric used w...
Cce Vs. Maihar Cements
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(69)ECC516
1. This reference application has been submitted by Revenue stating that a point of law arises out of Tribunal's Final Order No.A/646/97-NB dated 6.5.97. The point of law has been formulated "whether Explosives, HDPE bags and chemicals are items eligible for Modvat credit inasmuch as explosives are used in mines which are not a factory for Central Excise purposes and HDPE bags were then classified under Chapter Heading 63.01 which was not specified item for purpose of input under Rule 57A and Chemicals which have no nexus to the production of the goods." 2. We have heard Shri PR. Babu, Ld. DR for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Grover, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the Tribunal has already taken a view about a point of law arising in the case of explosives as they are used not within the premises of a factory is defined for Central Excise purposes. We do not see anything to disagree with the view of the Tribunal. We, ...
Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Samurai Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT420TriDel
1. The Revenue has filed the above application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for reference of the following questions of law stated to have arisen out of Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A 823-824/97-NB, dated 17-10-1997: "Whether Central Excise duty paid by the assessee in pursuance of the adjudication orders passed by the original quasi-judicial authority is refundable even when the assessee had not challenged the orders within the appeal period; and (2) Whether the refund claim is not hit by limitation if the duty was paid 'under protest' in pursuance of an appealable order passed by an Adjudicating Authority but subsequently the assessee did not challenge the order of lower authority and never filed any appeal before the appropriate Appellate authority with the result the order of the lower authority had become final " 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Reference application are that the respondents who are manufacturers of Video Cameras and Electron...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Capcoil Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT670TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal is the classification of crimping tools. The assessee claimed classification under Heading 82.05, which is for hand tools. The Assistant Collector approved the classification under Heading 84.67, which is for tools for working in the hand, pneumatic, hydraulic with self-contained non-electric motor. When the matter went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), he changed the classification to Heading 84.63 holding as under: "The other heading that could be considered is Heading No. 84.63, since the commodity in question is machinery tools and it works without removing the material. Given the nature of these machines and the functions they perform, this appears more appropriate. The reliance upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of USA Ismal Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 (57) E.L.T. 475 (Tribunal), by the appellant has misplaced because in that case. Tribunal had observed that "the learned advocate, before us, has fairly stated th...
United Cable Industries Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-2000
Reported in: (2000)(119)ELT668TriDel
1. The Appellants herein are manufacturer of insulated wires and cables falling under C.E.T.A. subheading 8544.90. During the month of December 1995, they cleared 2000 mtrs. of insulated cables of assorted sizes at nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 205/88-CE dated 25-5-1988, treating them as parts of wind mills. According to the department, insulated cables could not be regarded as part of wind mills and hence a show cause notice was issued on 4-7-1996 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 4,12,200/- not paid on the clearance of 2000 mtrs. of insulated wires. Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand and his order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal before the Tribunal.3. The Wind Mill is a device through which wind energy can be exploited. Wind energy can be used to run electric generator or any mechanical apparatus. Wind energy is converted into mechanical energy through a set of long specifically designed blades fitted with the shaft. The shaft rot...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »