Delhi Court October 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 4 of about 56 results (0.018 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Nirlon Synthetic Fibres and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2120DTri(Delhi)
1. In consequence of the Appellate Collector allowing five Appeals preferred by the Respondent against five adjudication orders (nos.1274, 2712, 2709, 4946 and 4950) made on diverse dates between 25-1-80 and 9-4-80, Government of India issued a notice dated 19-5-81 requiring the Respondent to show cause as to why the order of the Appellate Collector (allowing the five Appeals of the Respondent) should not be set aside, in exercise of the powers of Review vested under Sec. 36(2) of tie Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944-as it read at the relevant time (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proceedings in review that were thus initiated were transferred to the Tribunal and heard as Appeals, pursuant to the provisions in Sec. 35(P) of the Act. They are Appeal Nos. 1449, 1489,1491, 1493, 1494. (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, recovery of Caprolactum from wash water constituted manufacture of Caprolactum (b) If so, was it classifiable under item 14AA of the 1st S...
Tag this Judgment!Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT422TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal originally filed as revision application to Government of India is whether rejection of part of appellants' claim for refund relating to period 15-6-1970 to 20-6-1973 as barred by limitation and therefore, inadmissible, is correct.The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Die-cast rotors at their factory at Hubli, within jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. The Collector of Central Excise issued a Trade Notice No. 14/71 dated 22-1-1971 informing the Trade that the Die-cast rotors are classifiable under T.I. No. 30(4) of C.E.T. The appellants had been classifying the goods under this item and paying appropriate duty. Subsequently, the Collector issued another Trade Notice No.277/75, dated 12-12-1975 informing the trade that such die-cast rotors did not fall within the ambit of T.I. No. 30(4). The appellants then appelied on 21-6-1976 to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, claiming a refund of Rs. 43,143.40 the am...
Tag this Judgment!Textile Agencies Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)7ITD251(Delhi)
1. The sum and substance of all the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal, is to dispute the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') in a sum of Rs. 18,962 confirmed by the AAC in the course of first appeal filed by the assessee before him.2. In order to appreciate the issue, it will be of immense help to state brief backdrop of the facts. The assessment year involved is 1975-76. The income-tax return in this case was required to be filed on 30-6-1975, but the same was filed on 14-3-1978 and the assessment was completed on 25-9-1978. In the assessment order, penalty proceedings for late filing of return under Section 271(1)(a) were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14-2-1980 was issued by the ITO fixing the case for 21-2-1980 which, according to the revenue, was served on the assessee on 15-2-1980. The penalty order by the ITO was, however, passed on 25-3-1981 levying a penalty of Rs. 24,272 on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a) ...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Prasad Sinha Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(6)DRJ296; 1984LabIC1329; 1984(2)SLJ385(Delhi)
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge (Prakash Narain, J.) as he then was dated February 28, 1975 by which he dismissed the petition and upheld the action for review started under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services Rules (to be referred to hereinafter as Ccs Rules).(2) The petitioner is a confirmed Upper Division Clerk in the Central Bureau of Investigation. He was issued two charge-sheets. One under Rule 14 of the Ccs Rules, 1965 was issued on March 24, 1970. Another one was issued to him on January 25, 1971 under Rule 16.(3) In the charge under Rule 16 the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of 'censure'. The petitioner has accepted it and that is not the subject-matter of challenge before us. However, in the other charge under Rule 14, enquiry was held. After the show-cause the matter was considered by the Deputy Director, C.B.I, who was the Disciplinary Authority. He passed order on December 31, 1971 and exonerated the petitioner in...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Pd. Sinha Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR167
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 28.2.75 by which he dismissed the petition and upheld the action for review started under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services Rules (referred hereinafter as Ccs Rules), (2) The petitioner is a confirmed Upper Division Clerk in the CBI. He was issued two charge-sheets. One u/R. 14 of the Ccs Rules, 1965 was issued on 24-3-70. Another one was issued to him on 25-1-71 u/R. 16. (3) In the Charge u/R. 16 the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of 'censure'. The petitioner has accepted it and that is not the subject-matter of challenge before us. However, in the other charge u/R 14, enquiry was held. After the show-cause the matter was considered by the Deputy Director, C.B.I. who was the Disciplinary Authority. He passed order on 31-12-71 and exonerated the petitioner in the enquiry held u/R 14. (4) On 31-7-72, the Director, C.B.I, purporting to act u/R 29 of the Ccs Rules issued a show cause to the p...
Tag this Judgment!National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT201TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay dated 11th December, 1979. Originally a revision application was filed before the Central Govt. which on transfer has been registered as an appeal.2. The brief facts relevant for the present appeal are that the appellant company manufactures sulphuric acid. Approximately 31.2% of its total manufactured quantity is used by the appellants for their captive consumption and the balance is sold to outside parties. So far as the sales to the outside parties are concerned, it has been submitted that this in turn is divided into 2 categories. Approximately 23.5% of the sales are to large or bulk buyers (at the relevant time three such buyers were there), who lifted quantities of 2000 to 3000 M.T. at a time. The second category of sale comprising about 44% of the total manufacture was sold in small lots normally ranging from one tonne to 10 tonnes. However, in some very rare cases, such sales exte...
Tag this Judgment!South India Carbonic Gas Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT203TriDel
1. This appeal CCCB/SICGIL/CE/77/2646 dated 5-11-1980 has been filed on behalf of the South India Carbonic Gas Industries Ltd., Madras against the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras's order No. 1386/80 dated 19-5-1980.2. The appellants have 4 factories which produce carbon dioxide ; three factories started production and clearance before 1-4-1973, the fourth after 1-4-1973. Under notification 198/76-CE the Assistant Collector fixed the base clearance for all the 4 factories at 2,169,606,076 kg., with reference to clauses (b) and (c) of sub-paragraph 2(2) of the notification. Of the 2,169,606.076 kg., 584,980.766 kg. are accounted for by the fourth factory (which started clearances after 1-4-1973. We shall here refer to this factory as the fourth factory) South India Carbonic Gas claimed concessional duty for the fourth factory on carbon dioxide cleared from it over the 548,980.766 kg. which was reached on 20-11-1977. The Assistant Collector held that notification 198/76-CE ...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeo Prasad Sita Ram Vs. the Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2149Tri(Delhi)
1. The impugned order was passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs on 7th Sept., 1982. The appellant was originally a licensed Gold Dealer and was issued a licence for the said purpose. However, in 1983 the said licence was not renewed and the appeal against that non-renewal was subsequently rejected by the Appellate Collector. The appellant renewed his request for grant of a fresh licence in 1978.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that during the intervening period of a decade, the town of Kanauj has grown up considerably in population, industry, growth of education and other institutions. In particular, he pointed out that in the census of 1971 the population of the town was 28,176 whereas it had increased to 41,003 in the census of 1981. It was further emphasised that the town is a prosperous one and there is an increasing demand for gold jewellery. To show the growth of the town, it is stated that instead of one cinema now there are three cinema "houses., and ther...
Tag this Judgment!Grove Products (Far East) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2140DTri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 10-10-1983. However, in response to the notice of hearing the appellants sent a communication dated 26-9-1983 saying that they would not be appearing for the hearing and requesting that the Tribunal may dispose of the matter on the basis of the submissions in the appeal. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the matter with the assistance of the Senior Departmental Representative.3. The appellants are manufacturers of Cosmetics and Toilet preparations falling under Item 14F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). In actual practice, they do not manufacture the goods in a factory of their own, but get them manufactured, as loan licensees, in a factory belonging to another ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulati Constructions Co. Vs. Betwa River Board
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi299; 1984RLR162
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) AN agreement dt. 20.7.79 was entered into between the parties for the construction of Left Main Earth Dam, Rajghat Project. (2) THE Work was awarded by respondent 1. The said respondent is a Board which has been set up under Central Act. It is an admitted case of the parties that the office of the Board is located at Jhansi (M.P.) though a liaison office is stated to. be at New Delhi also. The Board was set up for carrying out work of constructing Rajghat Dam in district Lalitpur in the State of U.P. (3) THE petitioner is a Company having its head office at Jhansi. The Contract was awarded to the petitioner on a tender enquiry having been floated by respondent from Jhansi. The tender was submitted by the petitioner at Jhansi and it was at that place that the tender was accepted. It is clear that the contract was concluded at Jhansi, the place where the acceptance of tender took place. (4) IT is further admitted between the parties that the actual contract was execute...
Tag this Judgment!