Delhi Court May 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 7 of about 89 results (0.020 seconds)Ganga Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1135DTri(Delhi)
1. In this matter the Appellant who produces yarn falling under Tariff Item 18E was held to have cleared 10,015 kgs. of yarn between the period 6-11-1978 and 31-1-1979 without payment of excise duty (and not excess duty as mentioned in the order) at the rate of Rs. 24 per kg.and other levies at appropriate rates. The Assistant Collector further held that Notification No. 332/77-CE exempts polypropylene spun yarn falling under Tariff Item 18E and does not provide exemption to Blended polypropylene yarn. He held that yarn spun from mixture of polypropylene with other fibre is not referred to in trade parlance as polypropylene yarn but as blended yarn. As Notification No. 332/77-CE is restricted, according to the Assistant Collector, only to yarn exclusively spun out of polypropylene, the exemption was held to be not applicable to the blended yarn. He, therefore, confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice. The Appellate Collector upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector a...
Tag this Judgment!Keshoraipatan Sahakari Sugar Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1413DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s Keshoraipatan Sahakari Sugar Mills Limited, a Government managed Sugar Unit, hereinafter referred as the Company, filed a revision application dated 29th of December, 1976, to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, against the Order in Appeal No. 2596-CE-76, dated 26-11-1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Delhi.The Revision Application, having been transferred to the Tribunal as Appeal under Section 35P (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, hereinafter referred as the Act, is being disposed of as such.2. The Company engaged in the manufacture of sugar falling under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 1(1) claimed and received a rebate of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 7,64,840/- in respect of sugar produced in its Factory during the period from 1st December, 1973 to 30th June, 1974 in terms of Notification No. 1S9/73-C.E., dated 4th October, 1973 as subsequently amended by Notification No. 78/74-C.E., dated 20th April. 1974.The following graphic...
Tag this Judgment!Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1322DTri(Delhi)
1. M/s Nava Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Importer) filed a revision application under Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Central Government against the Order dated 13th October, 1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs in Bombay (Order No. S/49/203/77R). The R.A. has been transferred to the Tribunal under Section 131-B of the Act as Appeal and is being accordingly disposed of as such.2. The Importer claimed re-assessment of a part of the consignment vide BE Cash Memo 1715/13th of September, 1976. The re-assessment was in respect of two Items, one being microscopic stain and the other indicator paper (Litmus Paper). The importer sought re-assessment of both the items as laboratory chemicals under Sub-item 19 of Tariff Item No. 29.01/45 of CTA 75 without levy of additional duty under Item 14D of the CET. These items were assessed to duty by the Customs House under Item 32.04(12) of CTA 75 and CVD was also levied under Item 14...
Tag this Judgment!Escorts Ltd. Vs. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985]57CompCas684(Delhi); 24(1983)DLT321; 1985(5)ECC141
Jain, J. 1. This judgment shall also dispose of Cr.A. No. 252 of 1979 (H. P. Nanda v. Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board) as both these appeals arise out of common order. 2. There is no dispute so far as the facts of the case are concerned. S/Shri H. P. Nanda, C. K. Hazari, Rajan Nanda and Surjit Singh, appellants in the other appeal are managing director, joint director, joint director and vice-president, respectively, of M/s. Escorts Ltd. (for short 'the company'), appellant in this appeal. Besides various other activities, the appellant company is also carrying on an export business in readymade garments. In the year 1971, it exported readymade garments goods worth Rs. 14,55,770 to Raja Rani Corporation, New York (for short 'the buyer'). By letter dated February 10, 1972, the buyer raised disputes regarding the quality of the goods exported and the late supply. It proposed to pay 50% of the price without prejudice to its rights or a reference of the disputes to the arbitrat...
Tag this Judgment!Central Railway Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1131Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek the benefit of the lower rate of duty under Item 72(3)/72(a) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff in respect of Valve, Contact, Seal and Coil which, they urge, are specially designed components for exclusive use on diesel locomotives. During the hearing before us, they showed the relevant catalogue in support of their claim. The Department's representative stated that the subject goods were specifically listed elsewhere in the Tariff and could not therefore be assessed under the residuary Item 72(3).3. We have carefully considered the matter. We find from the catalogue produced by the appellants that the subject goods bear specific catalogue numbers and the respective drawings show that they are specially designed for exclusive use as components of diesel locomotives. The items of the Tariff preferred by the Department for classification of the subject goods are those which relate to general purpose items of hardware, ironmongery, rubber manufactures etc. We f...
Tag this Judgment!Extension Centre for TIn Cans and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC657DTri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals captioned above have been taken up together for disposal because they involve identical questions of facts and law, and the learned counsel for the appellant requested that they might be taken together.2. One of the appellants is Government of India Production Centre for Electric Motors, Tiruvalla located in the State of Kerala whereas the other appellant is the Extension Centre for Tin Cans and Tin Printing, Muvattupuzha, also located in the same State. Both these Centres are run under the auspices of the Ministry of Industry, Government of India.3. The short point arising for consideration is as to whether the products manufactured by these two Centres respectively were entitled to benefit of Government of India Notification No. 71/78 as amended by Notification No. 80/80 issued on 19.6.1980.4. The plea of the two appellants, both of whom had approached the Excise Authorities for this benefit in the name of Government of India, was rejected on the ground that in ...
Tag this Judgment!Overseas Trading Co. a/C Haryana Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1332Tri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek re-assessment of items III to XI of the relevant Bill of Entry at lower rate of duty under Item 72(3) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff on the ground that these are catalogued parts of Massey-Ferguson Combines. Their claim was rejected by the Appellate Collector on the ground that the subject goods were specified elsewhere in the Tariff and the appellants had not produced any evidence before him to establish their exclusive use in the Combines. During the hearing before us, the Department's representative stated that the subject goods included screws, ball bearings, washers, seals; chains and keys which were specifically listed in items 63(33), 72(35), 63(16), 39(1), 63(28) and 71(b)ICT, respectively, and could not therefore be assessed under the residuary item 72(3) ICT. The appellants produced the catalogue for Massey-Ferguson Combines and showed the relevant drawings and part numbers in respect of the subject goods. They maintained that the subject goods...
Tag this Judgment!B.N. Mittal Vs. D.D. Kakkar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT96
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This second appeal by the tenant is directed against the order dated 18-5-1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal whereby the first appeal of the tenant against the order of eviction was dismissed. (2) The appellant is a tenant in the first floor of the property bearing Municipal No. 900, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi since 1961. The respondent landlord filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1),(b),(e)& (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. I am not concerned in this appeal with clauses (b) and (e) inasmuch as the petition of the landlord under these two clauses was negatived and the eviction based only on clause (h) of Section 14(1). It was pleaded that apellant had recently acquired vacant possession of residence in G-114, Anand Niketan where he has shifted with his family. The notice of eviction in the present case was dated 30-6-1971. (3) In the written statement the appellant took up the plea that he had not acquired any new residence and that the said hou...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Dass Jagat Ram Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC825DTri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case in brief are that on 25-11-80, Central Excise officers paid a surprise visit to the factory of the appellants and found that they were engaged in manufacture of textile machinery and parts falling under item No. 68 of the Central Excise tariff but no central excise records were produced before the officers even when demanded by them. The officers thereupon seized textile machinery parts and one dyeing machine, in all valued at Rs. 49,900/-, which were found lying stored in various parts of the factory. Thereafter, between December 1980 and April 1981, the officers called upon the appellants seven times, including twice through formal summons, to produce their records for verification. But the appellants failed to do so. Finally, in May 1981, the appellants furnished particulars of their sales to the Asstt. Collector through their two letters dated 2-5-81 and 13-5-81 but when directed to produce their connected records for verification of those figures, they a...
Tag this Judgment!Andhra Patrika Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1416DTri(Delhi)
2. The appellants seek the benefit of lower rate of duty provided for in exemption Notification No. 11/77-Cus. in respect of Bobline 45 Automatic Film Processor imported by them for use in their printing industry. The only ground on which their claim has been rejected by the lower authorities is that the subject machine is an automatic film processing as well as paper processing machine and that the exemption is meant for a machine which is exclusively on automatic film processor. The same objection was reiterated by the Department's representative before us. On referring to Notification No. 11/77-Cus., we find that there is no such stipulation therein that the automatic film processor covered thereunder should be exclusively for film processing only. We find that this notification lays down only two conditions : - (1) it should be an automatic film processor falling under heading No. 90.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and We find that both these conditions are fulfilled in the ca...
Tag this Judgment!