Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)12ITD65(Delhi)
1. The assessee is a private limited company manufacturing electric switchgears. It did substantial business in the export of this commodity. Under the export trade policy of the Government of India, outlined for the year 1977-78, such exports made by the assessee resulted in some import entitlements, i.e., the assessee acquired the right to import certain commodities, which it required for its manufacturing business. It could either import such commodities or it could also, under the import entitlements, transfer the entitlements to other parties, who could in turn import the goods in question for the purposes of manufacture.2. During the relevant previous year (year ended 31-3-1978), the assessee sold the import entitlements it had received for Rs. 1,35,020.The assessee claimed that this sum of Rs. 1,35,020 was a capital receipt and not taxable. The IAC did not accept this plea. In his view, the entitlements had been received on account of business activities and, hence, closely int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1987(29)ELT753(Del); ILR1985Delhi164
Sachar, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of both the writpetitions. Apart from some details on facts on their own most of the main points are common. I shall take the facts from Cw 4037 of 1982 as counsel for the petitioner argued from this petition.(2) This petition challenges the impugned order dated20-12-1982 passed by the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.By the said order he directed the confiscation of 3002.557 MT of Refined Industrial Coconut oil imported by the petitioner,He gave, however, an option to the petitioner petititonerto redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.two crores in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act.(3) Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers theCentral Government that it may by notification, in the official gazette prohibit either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified the import or export of goods of any specified description. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act says t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(12)ECC113
1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 27-5-1985. Since three appeals arise out of the same order, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The appellants imported what is described in the relevant invoices and Bills of Entry is "100% polyester lining material size 44". The price as per invoice was US$ 0.35 C.I.F. and the suppliers are M/s Shabi Boeki Shokai, Higashi Ku P.O., Osaka, Japan. The import was effected in three vessels namely, "s.s. Raya Glory", "s.s. Raya Fortune" and "s.s. Portoroz". The ships arrived on 4-11-1983 and 2-12-1983. The Bills of Lading were dated as follows :-Raya Glory 25-3-83 A total quantity of 3,01,393 yards was imported and the value declared was Rs. 10,86,375/-. 29 Bills of Entry were filed. Originally details of 13 import licences issued under 0.1 and 0.2 of Appendix 17 of Import Policy AM 1983 were given in respect of 5 Bills of Entry of appellants M/s East Punjab Traders...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (1988)25ITD193(Delhi)
1. There being difference of opinion between Members on some of the points involved as per orders annexed, the Special Bench Tribunal order is as follows : 1. 80J Relief to be recomputed within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 152 ITR 308, i.e., all liabilities are to be deducted for the purpose of computing capital employed, which shall have the effect of the Revenue's appeal on the point being allowed and the assessee's rejected (Unanimous view)-Ground No. 1 in both the appeals. 2. Coming to Section 35B dispute on which both the parties were in appeal, the revenue is ('s claim to be) rejected whereas the assessee partly succeeds inasmuch as, in respect of packing material expenses to the tune of Rs. 65,08,653, directions have been given that Section 35B deduction should be allowed in respect of bifurcated expenses on wrappers. The directions are similar to the one given in the assessee's own case in res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 37(1989)DLT127
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The question which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether Rule 18, Delhi Liquor license Rules 1976 is constitutionally valid. The petitioners carry on the trade of running restaurants at Connaught Place, New Delhi. Embassy, Gaylord, Kwality, Standard and Volga are five restaurants Along with their (owners who have impugned the validity of Rule 18. They have sought a direction for striking down the said Rule as ultra virus of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A writ of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to issue liquor licenses (Bar licenses) in favor of the petitioners in form L-5 for sale of foreign liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquors to their customers and license in form L-4 for retail vend of beer for the consumption at their restaurants. (2) The petitioners' case is that four out of the five Restaurants held bar licenses till the year 1956. These licenses were issued under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(23)LC385Tri(Delhi)
1. The merits of the dispute involved in the above-mentioned 4 appeals are admittedly not in issue before us in these proceedings in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K Spinning & Weaving Mills Lid.and Anr. v. Union of India A Others . The only issue which requires to be determined by us is that of limitation in respect of the demands in dispute.2. By its judgment in the J.K. Spinning A Weaving Mills Ltd. case, the Supreme Court upheld the retrospective amendment to Central Excise Rules 9 and 49 (the Central Excise Rules are hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which had the effect, inter alia, of making excisable goods removed from the place of their manufacture for manufacture of any other commodity within the said place or factory, liable to payment of Central Excise duty. The Court further held that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, (which legislated the retrospective amendment) was subject to the provisions of Section HA of the Central Excises and Salt Act (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1990)(28)LC165Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Chandra Industries, G.T. Road, Jalandhar have filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-original No. 3/CE/86 dated 24.3.1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Chandra Industries are manufacturers of Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Machinery falling under Tariff Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. On. 30.4.1981, on an information, a contingent of the Divisional Preventive Staff attached to the Central Excise Division, Jalandhar conducted patrolling on the G.T. Road, and kept surveillance over M/s. Chandra Industries, Jalandhar. Nothing untoward was noticed during the course of patrolling but it was learnt from the people sitting in a tea stall near the party's factory premises that the appellants had removed a couple of refrigeration machines from the factory in a truck at about 22.00 hrs. Since the unit was reported to be working for one shift and was supposed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : II(1990)BC51; [1992]73CompCas701(Delhi); 41(1990)DLT359; 1990RLR252
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) By this order, I propose to deal with an interim application bearing I.A. No. 3945 of 1989, filed by the Nangia Construction (India) Private Ltd (hereinafter called the Petitioners) in Suit No. 1375-A of 1989. (2) Suit No. 1375-A of 1989 has been filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. (3) The interim application I.A. No. 3945 of 1989 has been filed under action 41 read with Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940, and section 151 of the Code Civil Procedure. By the said interim application, the. applicant/petitioner prays that respondent No. 1 National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., and respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., be restrained from terminating the contract which contains an arbitration clause, it is also prayed that the National Building Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called 'the NBCC'), be restrained from encashing to bank guarantees No. NP/G/16/136 and NP/G/1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1991(21)DRJ249
Usha Mehira, J.(1) Plaintiffs, Shri M. P. Matfaur & Others are stated to be allottees of quarters constructed at Hari Nagar, bearing No. 1 to 27 &staff; quarters at G. T. Road, Delhi bearing Nos. 28-.072 and 74 to 104.These quarters are in Delhi Transport Corporation Staff Colonies mentionedabove. Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the GOVT. of India SubsidisedHousing Scheme for Industrial Workers constructed 300 houses known as' Integrated Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers and Economically Weaker Sections of the Community.' The construction was started in the year 1962-63 and completed in the car 1965-66. Total costs incurred workedout to Rs. 3504 Lacs, out of which, a sum of Rs. 6.25 Lacs andR', 156 Lacs were provided by the Central Government as loan and subsidy to cover the cost of construction.(2) The houses consisted of small two rooms and regular two roomsquarters. There were about 100 small two rooms quarters and 200 regular rooms quarters. The allotment was to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)(42)LC38Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I, Collectorate Calcutta, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. The said appeal was received in the Registry at Calcutta on 12th January, 1989. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application No. E/Misc./428/89-D was received in the Registry on 17th August, 1989 making a prayer for raising the following additional grounds of appeal: 1. Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta in his order in Appeal No. 122/Cal.-I/88 have classified 'Robinson's Patent Barley' under sub-heading No. 1101.90 in preference to sub-heading No. 1901.19. This classification is not correct in Law for the following reasons: (a) According to General Explanatory Note No. 1 to Rules for the interpretation of the Schedule, where the description of an article or group of articles under a heading is preceded by "-", the said article or group of articles shall be taken to be a sub-classificati...
Tag this Judgment!