Delhi Court March 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 76 results (0.009 seconds)Shri S.V. Ramana Rao Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1028DTri(Delhi)
1. The facts giving rise to this dispute may be briefly stated. The Department's case is that a cine-projector was assembled from second hand parts without a Central Excise licence. On adjudication, the Assistant Collector allowed clearance of the cine-projector on payment of a redemption fine (in lieu of confiscation) of Rs. 4,000, a penalty of Rs. 500 and duty at 20% ad valorem on the tariff value in force at the time of clearance of the goods. On behalf of the person who assembled the cine-projector, the appellant agreed to pay duty and fine. In appeal, the appellant took the plea that the projector was not fitted with arc lamp, reflector mirror and lens and so the assessment should have been on the parts of the projector under Notification No.99/72, dated 17-3-72 and not on the complete projector. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal holding that was a case where the appellant, through the assembler, had manufactured a cinematograph projector except for the three aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC916DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek refund of countervailing duty collected from them on electric motors comprised in Items 1 and 2 of the Bill of entry No. 1143-D1, dated 29-8-1977 on the ground that no electric motor was in fact imported. They stated before us that they had verified once again from their purchase department that the order placed by the said department did not ask for any motor.3. On reference to the subject Bill of Entry, we find the description of Items 1 and 2 declared therein by the appellants themselves as under : "(1) Gear Box complete for Hot Blast Valve with an A.C. Elec. Motor of 4l5 v. 5 H.P. 4 K.W. (72b) (2) Gear Box complete for Main Hoist Valve with an A.C. Elec. Motor of 4l5 v. 30 H.P. 22 K.W. (72b)" 4. It is clear from the above declaration that both the items contained an A.C. electric motor each. If the appellants felt that their declaration in the Bill of Entry was wrong, they should have taken steps to have it corrected at the proper time when the goods were st...
Tag this Judgment!Bennett, Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1031DTri(Delhi)
2. Shri D.N. Mehta on behalf of the Appellants stated that the appellants had imported an Electronic Colour Scanner with ancillary equipment which was entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 381 dated 30.11.1977. The items in question are similar to the equipment manufactured under the brand name 'VariO Chromograph296' by another firm which has been specifically exempted under the aforesaid Notification, namely, the Notification 381 dated 30.11.77. The Electronic Colour Scanner imported by the appellants and the Chromograph are used for the same purpose i.e. to produce continuous tone for; screen colour separations from transparencies.3. Shri Mehta further pointed out that the appellants had made an alternative plea before the Appellate Collector of Customs that the Scanner imported by the Appellants should be classified as a process camera and assessed at the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 112 dt. 1.7.77 at the rate of 40%. The Appellate Col...
Tag this Judgment!Merck Spares Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1473DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India which has been transferred to the Tribunal and heard as an appeal pursuant to Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The learned counsel for the Appellant, Shri M. Ganesan, submitted in the course of his arguments that- (a) The appellant produced Bills/Invoices on 25-6-1976 in respect of the goods which were seized from his shop on 24-6-1976 on the ground that they were smuggled ; (b) accordingly, the Appellant should be deemed to have discharged the onus of proving the source of goods in question ; (c) On such discharge of the onus the burden of proof shifted on the Respondent to prove that the goods were smuggled ; (d) there is nothing in the evidence to show that the Revenue had discharged burden of requisite mens rea ; (e) no penalty could be levied in a case where the goods involved are not covered by Section 123 and in respect of which the initial onus of proving the same has been discharged by the Appellant ; (f) t...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983(2)Crimes70; 24(1983)DLT20
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) 1.ON 18th December, 1979 an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicted Ashok appellant for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 It was found that he (Ashok) committed murder of his real sister Kusum Lata and her husband Suresh. The motive of the crime was that Kusum had the cheek to defy opposition and break the shackles of her family in selecting Suresh as her fife partner and marrying him on September 23, 1975 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Sector No. 1, N.I.T.. Faridabad.(2) Previously the case was pending before the Court of Sessions, Gurgaon but by means of an order dated October 16, 1978 the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Court of Sessions, Delhi.(3) Kusum Lata was living with her parents at F-5/2, Krishan Nagar Delhi. Just in front of the said house, Suresh was living with his parents in house No. F-4/l Krishan Nagar, Delhi. Both the famil...
Tag this Judgment!Abha Astavants Vs. Suresh Astavans
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983RLR729
J.D. Jain, J.(1) Thus, the first phase of their married life ended on a sad not. At a time when a wedded couple would be normally gripped by euphoria of sharing bliss and happiness of togetherness the seed of disharmony was sown and the marital bond was put under considerable strain. It is no wonder that disenchantment was to follow. (2) On a consideration of the entire evidence on the record I see no cogent reason to disbelieve the appellant and her father and brother when they say that Sushil Kumar never visited Bombay, as alleged. Surely the bald statement of the respondent which is tendentious and is aimed at casting aspertion on the character of the appellant cannot be taken as gospel truth, especially when he is actuated by a malevolent desire to somehow get rid of the appellant. He is very much prone to make every kind of pernicious insinuation against her because it subserves his real purpose of portraying the appellant as a person who would mal-treat and insult her husband so ...
Tag this Judgment!Murphy India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC497DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek refund of countervailing duty paid on a consignment of bare speakers (woofers) of 10" diameter imported by them on 2-5-1975. This C.V.D. was collected from them under Item 37A of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants' plea is that this item of the Tariff, as it then stood, covered gramophones and record players as well as their parts and accessories but it did not cover parts of such accessories, that parts of such accessories consequently fell under Item 68 C.E.T. and by virtue of a Customs exemption notification goods falling under Item 68 were totally exempt from payment of C.V. duty till 28-2-1979, that the subject speakers, though being multi-purpose speakers, were not an integral part of gramophones or record players because their size was too big for fitting into any gramophone or record player in the market, that the subject speakers had to be fitted only into a stereophonic speaker system, that such stereophonic speaker systems were optional accesso...
Tag this Judgment!Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC880DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter, by way of a revision petition, filed by Pyrites Phosphates & Chemicals Ltd., a Government of India Undertaking, before the Central Government under section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has been transferred to the Tribunal, to be disposed of as an appeal because of provisions of section 35P of the said Act. It is accordingly being taken as such for disposal.2. The appellant is stated to be engaged in mining and marketing of phosphorite, and one of the area of its activities is Mussoorie Phosphorite Deposits, commonly known as Mussoorie-Phos. They state to have commenced their operations some time in September, 1969 but in the beginning, they were marketing the run of mine in its virgin form without any treatment but in the year 1973, they started crushing of the rock phosphate mine, and marketed the same as mineral fertilisers.3. Some time in May 1975, they addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Central Excises, Dehra Dun for clarification as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC570DTri(Delhi)
1. The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether machinery and components etc. imported by the appellants for modernisation of their cement plant were entitled to be assessed under heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not. In order to facilitate a proper understanding of the matter, we reproduce the text of heading 84.66 in the Annexure to this order.2. The case was argued before us at length on 25th February, 1983 and again from 16th March to 18th March, 1983. The appellants attacked the impugned order of the Additional Collector (hereinafter referred to as the "Collector") on the following grounds :- (1) The Collector has held against the appellants in his order on four counts- (i) Delay in registration of the contract on the part of the appellants, (ii) Failure on the part of the appellants to produce the endorsement of the licensing authority on the import licence, or a Recommendatory Letter, to the effect that the goods to be imported under the said licence were ...
Tag this Judgment!Jhaveri Thanavala Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1781DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter was before the Central Government by way of Revision Petition having been filed against the Order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay on 27-7-1981. It has since been received in the Tribunal by virtue of provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and is being disposed of as such.2. The controversy arose when the appellant received communication from the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Thane, Bombay, firstly dated 9-6-1978 informing that their products, such as insulating tapes, fibre glass reinforcement grinding wheels, discs, etc. were classifiable under Tariff Entry 22F of the CET and requiring them to obtain L 4 licence accordingly. This communication was followed by another order dated 21/22-6-1978 whereby the Assistant Collector intimated to the appellant that all their products (eleven in number), had been classified under Item 22F of the CET and they were required to pay differential duty accordingly, although they w...
Tag this Judgment!