Delhi Court October 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 3 of about 56 results (0.020 seconds)National Engineering Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT163TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as revision application Government of India against No. S/49-640/79 Air dt. 27-11-1979, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay is whether Rolled Steel Rings weighing 2.360 metric tonne imported by the appellants should be classified under heading 84.62 (1) as Ball Bearings as claimed by the appellants or under heading 73.33/40 as done by the lower authorities.2. A consignment of Rolled Steel Rings weighing 2.360 m. t. was imported by the Appellants by Bill of Entry No. Cash-801 dated 14-6-78.The Customs authorities assessed the goods under heading 73.33/40 and realised the appropriate duty. The appellants applied for refund claiming re-assessment under heading 84.62 (1) as Ball bearings in terms of Rule-2A of Rule of Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated 24-3-79 held that the goods are steel casting in form of rough finished rings without any taper sur...
Tag this Judgment!Jay Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT462TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal, for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. There will be occasion to refer to the facts of this case in some detail in the later part of this order and, therefore, it is proposed to set out at this junture, only the salient facts. The appellants are manufacturers of Polyurethane Foam (P.U.F.) which is an article falling under Item No. 15A of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). For manufacture of PUF, they imported certain raw materials, namely, polyesters and polyether. These raw materials used to be assessed by the Bombay Customs authorities to basic customs duty as resins under heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and countervailing duty as resins under Item No. 15A of the CET. Item No. 15A CET has been one of the items in respe...
Tag this Judgment!U-foam Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2502TriDel
1. The question that falls for decision in this case is whether cuttings and trimmings of polyurethane foam are liable to duty as "polyurethane foam" under item 15A(3) of the Central Excise Tariff.2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. Briefly stated, in the first instance the appellants manufacture polyurethane foam in the form of a huge block or bun. The bun is cut into smaller blocks which are later cut into articles of desired shape and size. Sometimes, smaller blocks are bonded together with adhesive to form large sized articles like mattresses. Cutting and trimmings arise in the process of cutting of bun into blocks and of blocks into articles etc. These cuttings and trimmings are also used by the appellants for manufacture of articles of polyurethane foam by further cutting and bonding the pieces together. The appellants call these cuttings and trimmings as waste and scrap. During the hearing before us they quoted from three books, Bayer-Plastics, Bayer-Polyurethanes and...
Tag this Judgment!Dalbir Singh Tokas Vs. Union of India, Etc.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ62; 1984LabIC986; 1984RLR26
Rajindar Sachar, J.(1) This petition has been filed seeking a mandamus and makes a grievance that the petitioner who took the Delhi Administration Examination, 1981, being combined competitive examination held every year by the Staff Selection Commission for the selection and direct recruitment of the candidates for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police and who was selected for the same is being denied the appointment.(2) The petitioner took the examination on 13th and 14th of January 1981. Thereafter, the petitioner passed through the various physical test, medical test etc. It is common case that after conducting the personality test the Staff Selection Commission recommended the names of 116 candidates including the petitioner for the appointment for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive). The petitioner naturally expected that he would be called and given the appointment along with the others in 1981. But that was not to be. The petitioner would have been put in grea...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Arora @ Vinod Kumar Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984CriLJ1344; ILR1984Delhi497
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) By our order passed on 27th September, 1983, we had quashed the impugned detention order dated 22nd February, 1983. While making the Rule absolute we had directed that the petitioner . Vinod Kumar Arora be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under any other valid order passed by a Court or an authority. We now proceed to set out the reasons for quashing the detention order.(2) Mr. R. L. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the rule issued in this writ of habeas corpus, urged mainly one point. He submitted that the petitioner was not supplied copies of relevant documents on which reliance was placed by the Administrator in the grounds of detention. The plea is that as the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation against the detention order, the protection of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(5) of the Constitution was denied to him.(3) To appreciate the submission it is necessary ...
Tag this Judgment!Advance Transformers and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT452TriDel
1. These three appeals relate to the combined Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, against the three Orders-in-Original mentioned above. The appellants had filed a single Revision Application to the Government of India which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act has been transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before it.Since the Appellate Collector's order is a combined one, against three Orders-in-Onginal, the appellants have subsequently filed two supplementary appeals. All these appeals are interconnected and have been dealt with together.2. The basic facts are that the appellants have entered into an agreement with Messrs. Industrial Meters Pvt. Ltd., Kandivli (hereinafter referred to as "IMP") to fabricate and assemble HT and LT distribution transformers from the raw materials/components supplied to them by IMP. The transformers were to be assembled according to the specifications/design ...
Tag this Judgment!Rainbow Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2111DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act and is directed against the order dated 23-2-1983 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. The question arising for decision in this case is whether, for the purposes of Central Excise Notification No. 44/82, dated 28-2-1982, the expression "home consumption" used therein, would take within its ambit consumption of excisable goods within the producing factory which, in popular parlance, is referred to and known as "Captive Consumption".The appellants contend that it does not whereas the Department contends it does. "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts synthetic organic dyestufss (including pigment dyestuffs) and synthetic organic derivatives used in any dyeing process, falling under Item No. 14D of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Metal Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2506TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. This is the fifth occasion when this appeal has been called for hearing. It was first listed for 7-1-1983. The appellants sent an application requesting that the hearing be held at Madras. A further date, viz. 18-2-1983, was fixed for hearing at New Delhi. The appellants did not appear on that date. A further notice was issued to the appellants, specifically informing them that their request for hearing at Madras had been rejected, that hearing would be on 23-3-1983 at New Delhi-and that this would be final. As the appellants did not appear on that date also, their appeal was dismissed for default.3. Thereafter the appellants made an application for restoration of their appeal, on the ground that on 17-3-1983 th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2087DTri(Delhi)
1. By the present Reference Application purporting to be under Section 35(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act), the Applicant requires of the Tribunal that a statement of the case decided in the Tribunal's Order No. 386-D/1983 dated 10.6.1983 be drawn up and the questions of law as in Annexure "B" to the application be referred to the High Court.2. The matter was first listed for 7.10.83, but could not be fully heard for lack of time. The Bench however pointed out to Shri Tayal that the application appeared to be prima fade not maintainable. Shri Tayal stated that he would give thought to this aspect and added that he was awaiting instructions from the applicant Collector.3. Shri D.N. Kohli, who appeared for the Respondents on that date, submitted an application in which he stated that the Excise Authorities had not so far complied with the direction in the Tribunal's order dated 10.6.83, and had not granted refund on the basis of that order.He req...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat Dyetex Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2117DTri(Delhi)
1. This appeal arose from the order No. 690/80 dated 27th May, 1980 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. M/s Gujarat Dyetex Industries, Ahmedabad manufacture organic surface active agents (synthetic detergents) falling under item 15AA-CET and claimed exemption under notification No. 101/66-CE. Their goods fall under item 2 of this notification which reads : "Organic surface active agents (other than soap), surface active preparations and washing preparations, whether or not containing soap." "If in or in relation to the manufacture and packing of such surface active agents, surface active preparations and washing preparations, no process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power or of steam for heating." 2. The manufacturers manufacture their detergents without power except in the pumping of raw materials in which they use power driven pumps.The Appellate Collector held that the exemption is related to non-use of power not only in the manufacturing process...
Tag this Judgment!