Delhi Court April 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 102 results (0.021 seconds)Jyoti Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1527DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter, originally a revision application against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, on being transferred to the Appellate Tribunal has been taken up as an appeal for consideration.3. The appellants M/s. Jyoti Limited had preferred a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the goods in question viz. High Speed Camera - Dynafax Framing Camera with all accessories would fall under Heading 90.08 of the Customs Tariff Act @ 40% + 5% instead of at 100% + 20% under Heading 90.07 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo, Colaba, Bombay, on the basis of the scrutiny of various documents produced, came to the conclusion that the said Dynafax High Speed Camera is correctly classified under CTA 90.07 and not under 90.08. Hence, the refund claim was rejected as being not admissible.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector, the Appellants preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector of ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Vanaspati Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC756DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called appeal) filed before the Central Government which under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands referred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. This appeal raised an interesting question relating to the interpretation of Notification No. 23/75-Central Excises dated 1.3.1975. This notification granted a partial exemption from excise duty on vegetable product falling under Item 13 of the Central Excise Schedule in the manufacture of which indigenous cotton seed oil was used, at the rates and subject to the conditions set out in the notification. (One of the conditions was that "no such exemption...shall be admissible in respect of the said vegetable product where the indigenous cotton seed oil used in the manufacture thereof does not exceed 30 per cent of total weight of the said vegetable product"). The procedure for granting of the exemption was that the quan...
Tag this Judgment!Jairam and Sons Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1788DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter, originally was a revision application against the order-in -Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, on being transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, has been taken up as an appeal for consideration.3. The Steamer Agents, M/s Jairam & Sons, Cochin-2 had preferred a claim for refund of duty amounting to Rs. 23,783.75 forming a portion of the import duty collected under Bill of Entry ID. 136/19-8-71 on the ground that High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil should be assessed to duty at Rs. 189.05 per K.L. as against the duty collected at Rs. 497.70 per K.L. and that the private property of officer and crew should not have been assessed to duty along with ship's other stores.4. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Department Custom House, Cochin had rejected the contention of the Steamer Agents as regards the assessment made @ Rs. 497.70 per K.L. in view of the fact that the Steamer Agents had failed to produce any documentary evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Venkateswara Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1825DTri(Delhi)
2. In this case, it has been held by the lower authorities that the appellants did not properly account for certain quantities of steel ingots purchased by them and that they removed mild steel rounds manufactured out of such ingots without paying duty thereon and without accounting for them in the prescribed R.O. 1 account during the period from October, 1971 to August, 1972. Accordingly, demand of duty of Rs. 47,515.17 has been confirmed against them under Rule IDA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 100/- has also been imposed on them under Rule 173Q for non-maintenance of raw material accounts.3. The appellants' first plea is that the demand for duty was time-barred under rub 10 since the show cause notice was issued to them four years later, in August, 1976. In support of their plea, they state that the Central Excise officers were fully aware of the working of the appellants' unit. When repeatedly asked by us to substantiate this point, the appellants could only ...
Tag this Judgment!Rekha Industries Vs. Central Board of Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1163TriDel
1. The Department's case, as seen-from the records, is that the appellants manufactured during the period 6-2-69 to 16-4-77, a quantity of 1,01,81,375 pieces of pilfer-proof caps (hereinafter referred to as P.P. Caps) falling under Item No. 42 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as CET) without taking out a Central Excise licence and removed the said goods from the factory premises without payment of central excise duty leviable thereon. By a Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-77, the appellants were asked to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise why duty at the appropriate rate should not be demanded from them on the said quantity of P.P. Caps under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and why a quantity of 2,23,645 pieces of P.P. Caps seized from them should not be confiscated under Rule 173-Q(1) and why penalty should not be imposed on them. On completion of adjudication proceedings the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Veg Oils Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1327DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision application (hereinafter called the appeal) to the Central Government against the order-in-appeal No. 1896/79 dated 17th Dec. 1979, passed by Shri B.V. Kumar, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, for disposal as if it were an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants filed a classification list on 23-8-1978 in respect of 'Extra Hardened Technical Hard Oil (Palm)' (hereinafter called HTO) wherein they claimed the classification of the goods under T.I. 68 of the CET. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay provisionally approved the classification under T.I. 13, which was subsequently confirmed by letter dated 25-10-78. In the meanwhile, sample of the product was drawn and on test it was found that the melting point of the sample was 54 degree 'C', thus not being fit for human consumption and that when mixed with other oil it could be us...
Tag this Judgment!Copper Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC762DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants manufacture polished copper cylinders which after engraving with the desired design are used for printing of textiles.There is no dispute that at the time of their clearance from the appellants' factory the subject cylinders are not engraved. The dispute is whether such cylinders are entitled to exemption from central excise duty under entry No. 21 of notification No. 55/75-C.E. which reads as under : - "21. Engraved copper rollers or cylinders for use in textile industry." 3. The appellants argued that the word "or" is disjunctive and it does not mean "and" (AIR 1974 SC 686). Accordingly, they stated that the words "Engraved copper" qualified only rollers and not cylinders. At this, the Department's representative pointed out that the interpretation placed by the appellants on the entry would mean that all types of cylinders used in textile industry were exempt under the entry. He added that the textile industry used cylinders of various types, those made of wood (i...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhama Devi Vs. Niranjan Singh and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1983Delhi469; 1983(5)DRJ178
J.D. Jain, J.(1) The facts giving rise to this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25th May 1981 of a Single Judge of this Court (passed in F.A.O. No. 43/80) may be briefly stated as under.(2) The Marriage of the appellant Smt. Sukhma Devi with respondent No. 1 Shri Niranjan Singh was solemnised on 26th June 1972 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, both the parties being Jat by caste and she was taken to her Matrimonial home on the next following morning. In December 1978 the husband moved an application for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of (a) desertion, (b) cruelty, and (c) adultery. It was averred by him that the appellant left the matrimonial home on the very evening of 27th June 1972 without any just cause or reasonable excuse and as such there could be no consummation of marriage. She did not return to her matrimonial home uptil the filing of the petition for divorce although he waited for her return all these...
Tag this Judgment!Delhi Development Authority and ors. Vs. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. and o ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi61; ILR1983Delhi187; 1983RLR662
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of L. P.A. Nos. 9 and 25 of 1982 filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.D.A.') and Ms. Nehru Place Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') from the judgment of a single Judge of this Court who had partially allowed the writ petition filed by the Company relating to the passing of its building plans on a plot of land in Nehru Place which was given on lease by the D.D.A. to the Company. (2) In order to understand the controversy between the parties it will be necessary to enumerate the facts of the case in some detail. These fact's can be divided into three periods. The first period being up to 17th March, 1976 on which date the plot in question was auctioned; the second period is up to 30th November, 1977 when the lease-deed was D.D.A. in favor of the Company and the other facts are with regard to the period subsequent to the execution of the lease-deed. The pre-lease facts would indicate a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Waryam Singh Duggal Vs. Savitri Devi
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi214
T.P.S. Chawla, J.(1) This is a petition under the proviso to section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (the 'Act'). It seeks to have revised an order for recovery of possession made by Mr. Dinesh Dayal, the 4th Additional Rent Controller.(2) The petitioner is Waryam Singh Duggal, the aggrieved tenant. He is a building contractor. The respondent is Savitri Devi, the wife of Shri Dheram Pal. She is the owner of the house at 2114, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. This is a two and a half storeyed house. Excepting one room, the tenant has the entire ground floor. The landlady has that one room on the ground floor, the entire first floor, and the barsati. There are two garages. One is with the tenant, and the other with the landlady, there are also two servants' quarters. They are in the possession of other tenants. I will .give more details about the accommodation a little later.(3) The order for recovery of possession was made under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was held: (i) that t...
Tag this Judgment!