Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 6 of about 89 results (0.009 seconds)Government Ceramic Service Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC817DTri(Delhi)
1. Government Ceramic Service Centre, Mangattuparamba, Cannanore, hereinafter referred as the G.S.C. filed a Revision Application dated 13th October 1979 before the Central Government on 15th October 1979 against the Order No. 748/79 dated 29-5-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madras. The said application has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and is being disposed of as such.2. The G.S.C. was started in the year 1963. For effective management of the Unit which belongs to the Government of Kerala, it was transferred to M/s Kerala State Small Industries Corporation/ Limited by Notification No. GS (MS)-608/IND dated 16-8-1963 on terms and conditions contained therein.3. Subsequently, a new Company by name M/s Kerala State Small Industries Development and Employment Corporation Limited (a wholly Government owned Company under the provisions of the Companies Act) was incorporated, which took o...
Tag this Judgment!Pankaj Dial Industries Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC814DTri(Delhi)
1. These five appeals arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector and relating to the same appellants involve a common issue and they were, therefore, heard together on 17-5-1983.2. The dispute relates to classification of watch dial feet imported by the appellants. The Department assessed them to customs duty under Heading 91.01/11 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as parts of watches.The appellants; claim their re-assessment at a lower rate of duty under Heading 74.09/19 CTA on the ground that the goods are not parts of watches but only raw material made of copper and its alloys. During the hearing, they showed us a sample of watch dial feet soldered to a round metallic disc. They stated that watch dial feet were at best a part of the dial and not of the watch and it was only the dial which was a watch part. They stated further that watch dial feet were used not only in watches, but also in gauges which contain a dial. They contended that watch dial feet ...
Tag this Judgment!Phosphate Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1011DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India, which under Section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19W is to be proceeded with, as if it were an appeal filed before this Tribunal.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Fertilisers and Chemicals.Excise duty was imposed on Fertilisers for the first time w.e.f.1-3-1969. On the midnight of 28-2-1969, the appellants had in their factory 6366.659 Metric Tonnes of fertilisers stored in bulk and some quantity packed in bags with which we are not concerned. Excise authorities were insisting on payment of duty on bulk quantity of fertilisers contending that they were not fully manufactured as they were not packed. The appellants were Members of 'Fertilisers Association of India'. The Association advised all its members to pay excise duty on bulk quantity under protest if payment of duty before removal was insisted upon by the Excise authorities and lodge a separate strong protest in this behalf. The bulk quantity of fe...
Tag this Judgment!Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Narendra Kumar Gupta
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)4ITD694(Delhi)
1. The above three departmental appeals are directed against the orders of the AAC for the wealth-tax assessment year 1975-76.2. The three assessees were partners in the firm, Film Angels, which was deriving income from distribution, exploitation and exhibition of certain films in the territory of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. The valuation dates in all the three cases was 31-3-1975. The assessee had filed wealth-tax returns on the basis of the assessee's interest in the above firm. The WTO found that at the relevant time the firm, Film Angels, was having distribution rights in respect of the following four films: Name of the picture Date of release3. Chhoti Bahan. 16-7-19724. Kahani Kismat Ki. April 1974 The WTO was of the view that the value of the distribution rights over the unexploited period under the various agreements was an asset of the firm and that asset was not indicated in the balance sheet and consequently, not in the net wealth returned by the assessees. The WTO considered t...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)5ITD361(Delhi)
1. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., otherwise popularly known as BHEL, is one of the most prestigious undertakings of the Government of India.The business of BHEL consists of manufacture of heavy electrical goods.It was established sometime in the year 1964. Earlier there was a Government Corporation by name Heavy Electricals Ltd. ('HEL'), which had its units at four places, namely, Bhopal, Hyderabad, Trichi and Hardwar. When BHEL was established the units at Hyderabad, Trichi and Hardwar were taken over by it from HEL. By an order dated 27-3-1974 of the Government of India, in accordance with the provisions of Section 396 of the Companies Act, HEL was amalgamated with BHEL with effect from 1-1-1974 with the result that the fourth unit at Bhopal also came within the fold of BHEL. It is useful to refer to the preamble and a few clauses of the order passed by the Company Law Board in the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India, dated 27-3-1974. Whereas the Company Law Board is ...
Tag this Judgment!Laboratories Vifor (India) Vs. the Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC977DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application to the Government of India under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 (as then applicable) which, in accordance with Section 131 B (2) ibid, is to be proceeded with as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. (It is hereinafter referred to for convenience as ' "the appeal"). After notice had been duly issued, the matter was taken up for hearing on the 11th April, 1983.2. The case relates to the appellants' claim for refund of Rs. 54,540.50 paid by them as additional (countervailing) duty of Customs on a consignment of non-toxic PVC Compound imported by them. The duty was paid on 17.2.75. Their refund claim was filed on 13.1.78, i.e. well beyond the time limit of 6 months set out in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. Their claim was therefore rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay. The appellants then filed a revision petition to the Government of India, which has...
Tag this Judgment!Basf India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC780DTri(Delhi)
1. These are four Revision Applications (hereinafter called "appeals") filed before the Central Government, which under Section 131B- of the Customs Act, 1962, stand transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if they were appeals presented before the Tribunal. As the four appeals involve similar issues, they are dealt with in a common order.2. In this case, notices of the hearing date(s) were issued to the appellants at the Bombay address given in their revision application; to BASF(India) Ltd., New Delhi, which appeared to be a connected office of the appellants; to Bakshi Shiv Charan Singh, Advocate, through whom the appeals were filed, and in whose favour the appellants had originally executed 'vakalatnamas';'and to Shri Y. N. Chopra, Consultant, in whose favour the appellants subsequently executed a joint 'vakalatnama'. None of these notices evoked any response.3. When the case was called on'5.5.1983, there was again no one present on behalf of the appellants. The Bench acc...
Tag this Judgment!United Electrical Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC819DTri(Delhi)
1. The case was heard on 8-2-1983. The appellants imported the following three machines in two separate consignments :- (2) (i) One number Sorting machine SSO 103. (ii) One number Coating line COT 200.They sought the benefit of lower rate of duty under entry 58 of notification No. 118/80-Cus. This entry reads as under :- "(58) Automatic lead welding, lacquering, testing, colour coating, sorting and packing machine for resistors." The Appellate Collector held that between them the machines imported by the appellants could do all the jobs enumerated in the aforesaid entry 58 but each machine separately could not do all the jobs. The Appellate Collector then recorded his order as under :- "There seems no doubt at all that there is a slip-up in issuing original notification. However executive and quasi-judicial authorities can only interpret the law as it stands and not read it corrected as per intentions which remained unreflected in the text of notification. There is no doubt that the n...
Tag this Judgment!Kamarhalty Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1320DTri(Delhi)
1. This matter originally was a revision petition which has been transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and is taken up as an appeal for consideration.2. The origin of the matter is the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta XII Division, wherein he held that the assessee did not file a classification list and obtain approval for the same. As a consequence, he held that the appellant cleared goods without intimation of permission from the Central Excise Department. The Assistant Collector, therefore, held that the clearances were unauthorised within the meaning of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules. He also rejected the claim that gunny cuttings were the same as rags and chindies. In respect of broad loom waste also he observed that the price charged from the customers was more than the price usually charged for broad loom yarn and, therefore, did not accept the request to admit their claim and to withdraw the demands.The Appellate Collector in his order...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhanpal National Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC822DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application (hereinafter called appeal) to the Central Government against Order-in-Appeal No. C/48-261/76R dated 15-12-1976, passed by Sh. B.K. Doshi, Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called Act), for disposal, as if it were an Appeal presented before it.2. The appellants through. Minerals & Metal Corporation of India imported 70 tons of 'Manganese Dioxide' Ex. S.S. Giorgis Mathmthees.Vide B.E. No. 2142 dt. 11-7-1974, the goods were classified under Item 28 of I.C.T. as it then stood and appropriate duty realised. The appellants claimed refund of duty on the ground that the imported goods are unprocessed ore and should have been classified under Item 26, I.C.T. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund, by his order dated 18-12-1975, rejected the claim for refund as untenable on the ground that the imported goods were found to be coarse powder composed ...
Tag this Judgment!