Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 3 of about 89 results (0.015 seconds)Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC798DTri(Delhi)
1. During the hearing before us today, the appellants withdrew their claim for refund on account of shortages discovered in the consignment imported by them. they pressed for their claim for re-assessment of the subject goods at lower rate of customs duty as Stainless Steel Plates under Notification No. 44/71-Cus. They stated that the goods were classifiable as plates and not as sheets as per the then Central Board of Revenue's ruling contained on page 401 of the ICT Guide, Thirteenth Edition. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that the import invoice described the goods as Stainless Steel Sheets. The appellants declared the goods also as Stainless Steel Sheets in the relevant Bill of Entry. According to the ISI specifications, the goods were sheets and not plates as their thickness was below 5 mm. The C.B.R. ruling referred to by the appellants had no statutory force. In the absence of a definition in the Act or the Tariff or the notification itself, the definitions and ...
Tag this Judgment!Bell Punch (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2374TriDel
1. The point falling for determination in the two appeals, captioned above, is as to whether the Collector of Customs, exercising powers vested in him under the erstwhile Section 130(2) of the Customs Act, is obliged to confine himself exclusively and strictly to the record or as to whether he can take into consideration some material which may come into his possession subsequent to the orders, having been passed by the officer of Customs subordinate to him and which orders he proposes to review.2. It would be expedient to reproduce the facts, giving rise to this controversy. The two Companies who are the appellants before us, namely, M/s Automatic Machine Company (India) and M/s Bell Punch (India) are private limited companies, having some of the Directors common, and both of them are having their registered office in Calcutta, and as their letter-heads in the files reveal, in the same premises. Two separate Bills of Entries were submitted on their behalf by M/s G.D. Traders, Custom ...
Tag this Judgment!Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1080DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application filed before the Central Government by the appellant which stands transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal as if 'if were an appeal filed before it. .2. For a proper appreciation of the issues involved in this appeal it may be relevant to set out briefly the facts of the case leading to this appeal. The appellant in this case is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and was, Inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of hospital equipment and equipment for canteen of big industrial concerns at his factory. The item which is the subject-matter of this appeal is the Heavy Duty Hot Food Cabinet for canteens of big industrial units. This item was being classified as non-excisable upto 28-2-1975, the same not falling under any of the Central Excise Tariff Items 1 to 66. But subsequent to the insertion of the new Tariff Item 68-"All other goods not elsewhere specified" w.e.f.1-3-1975, the Item in question came to be clas...
Tag this Judgment!Indian Plywood Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of Cental Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1083DTri(Delhi)
1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of plywood. For this purpose, they are using commercial and decorative veneers which they manufacture in their factory as well as get from outside. In the case of outside purchases, the veneers, which fall under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short), are duty paid. On 18-6-77, the Central Government issued Notification No. 178/77 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, exempting all excisable goods on which duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 CET ("Inputs") have been used, from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the "Inputs". By virtue of Clause 37(1) of the Finance Bill 1978, special excise duty became leviable on all excisable goods at the rate of 5% of the amount of excise duty chargeable on such goods. The appellants contended that the basic excise d...
Tag this Judgment!Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1134TriDel
1. The matter is in respect of 14 appeals by M/s. Nav Bharat Enterprises (P) Ltd., New Delhi against Orders-in-Appeal Nos. (as given above) passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, relating to the assessment of liquid paraffin. It appears that assessment had been made under Item 11Aof the CET. Later in some cases, the assessment was changed to Item 8-CET. In the cases which were changed from Item 11A to Item 8, refund had been given providing partial elief to the importer. However, in the cases in respect of bills of entry No. 33 dated 1-8-1977, No. 828 dated 21-9-1977, No. 43 dated 1-9-1977 and 271 dated 7-9-1977, the assessment continued under Item 11A with the Appellate Collector himself, when an appeal was made to him, rejecting the claim of the party and holding that assessment under Item 11A-CET was correct. The appeal in respect of bill of entry No. 820 dated 21-2-1977, was also rejected and assessment continued under Item 11A-CET.2. The liquid paraffin had been te...
Tag this Judgment!Purolator India Limited Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(24)ELT18(Del)
1. By this petition challenge has been made to the virus of Section 4(4)(c) proviso III to Section 4(1)(a) of Central Excises and Salt Act. The question raised as to virus is in the context of the customers of the petitioner for whom goods are not manufactured by the petitioner with brand name imprinted thereon of the respective customers. It is not necessary to deal with the virus of the provision in the view that we are going to take in the matter. 2. The impugned show cause notice dated October 19, 1982 is on the basis that prima facie the Superintendent of Central Excise feels that the price list submitted by the petitioner was not correct inasmuch as the brand name owner would appear to be the manufacturer and not the petitioner. In consequence the price at which the brand name owner sells the goods would be the relevant price on which petitioner would be required to pay excise duty. In our view the stand taken by the Superintendent of Central Excise is wholly untenable. We have a...
Tag this Judgment!Darshan Singh Vs. Forward India Finance (P) Ltd. and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi140; 24(1983)DLT261; 1984(6)DRJ18; 1984RLR236
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) ON an application under Sections if and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, an award made by Shri Bakshi Man Singh, as bole Arbitrator was filed on the Original Side, of this Court and the proceedings were registered as Suit No. 436-A/75. iwo sets of objections were filed by Shri Darshan Singh, present appellant the this award ; they were numbered as T.A. Nos. 1592 and 1593 of 1975. The learned Single Judge, who dealt with these objections, treated the second set as superfluous and dealt only with the first objection petition.(2) THE facts of the case need to be explained betdi A some detail. There was a hire-purchase agreement,dated 18th January, 1956, between the appellant and M/s. Forward India Finance (P) Ltd. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause which appointed Shri Bal Mukand Gupta, Advocate as the sole arbitrator. It appears that the Finance Company had invoked this arbitration clause in order to have the disputes arising from the said hire-purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Sushma Vs. Satish Chander
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi1; 1983(5)DRJ305; 1983RLR724
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) This appeal has been referred to a larger Bench as per the reference order dated 21st January, 1982. The facts of the case were that the husband Shri Satish Chander, had applied for divorce against his wife Shrimati Sushma ; this was successful and on 4th October, 1979, the Additional District Judge granted the divorce. The wife filed an appeal to the High Court which succeeded and so, the divorce was set aside. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings as well as the appeal, maintenance pendente lite was granted at Rs. 225.00 per month to the wife.(2) After the proceedings were over in the High Court, the wife applied for permanent alimony and maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This application was rejected by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, on the ground that such permanent alimony and maintenance can only be granted in case divorce is granted and not if the marriage subsists. (3) When this matter came before the learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Allied Trading Co. Etc. Vs. S.L. Verma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR102
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) [APPELLANTS 3 & 4 are brothers. Wife of appellant 3 is sister of Respondent. Appellants 3, 4 & 5 are partners of App. 1 & 2. Respondent repatriated from Burma on 12.1.67. He sued appellants for recovery of Rs. 1 lac alleged to have been deposited on 1.4.67 evidenced by a written receipt. He further pleaded that Defts. paid him interest on 10.10.68 & 12.11.69 after deducting Rs. 1,200.00 as tax deducted at source and deposited in State Bank and as after that nothing was paid, he made a demand by letter of 6.9.71 and then sued Defts. on 14.7.72. The Defts. contended that alleged deposit receipt was without consideration ; that plaintiff came from Burma without any funds & could not bring any and had no money to deposit, that the documents had been obtained by the plaintiff by mis-representation and that the suit was barred by time. Trial Court held that there was consideration and the suit was within limitation. Defts. appealed against it to D.B. D.B. dismissed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!May and Baker (1) Private Ltd. Vs. M.N. Kumar and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT115; 1986LabIC1005
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) C.W. No. 152 of 1973 and C.W. No. 860 of1973 are two cross-writ petitions against the Award dated 18th October,1972 passed by the Labour Court presided over by Shri B.B.L. Hajelay.The former is on behalf of the Management of M/s. May and Baker (1)Pvt. Ltd., and the later is on behalf of Shri M.N. Kumar, the workmanconcerned.(2) Broadly stating the facts are; that the Management had chargesheeted the workman for misconduct and (3) On disputes having arisen the Delhi Administration made a reference dated 13/11/1966 to the Labour Court for determination of the following issue: 'WHETHER the termination of services of the workman is unlawful and illegal and if so, to what relief is the workman entitled?'(4) was Award impugned the thereafter and witnesses various examining by Court Labour before led evidence Management Accordingly services. of termination merits evidence on lead to opportunity an gave with fully complied not justice natural principles as vitiated enqui...
Tag this Judgment!