Delhi Court July 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1179DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excites and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as If It were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. This case relates to the classification of 17 varieties of paper manufactured by the appellants. They had submitted a classification list for these varieties of paper, claiming all of them to be classifiable under sub-item (3) of I tern 17 CET that is, as unspecified varieties of printing and writing paper. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, however, held that these varieties of paper were classifiable under sub-item (2) ibid which covered specified varieties of paper, including cartridge paper. The only reason given for this decision in the Assistant Collector's order dated 30.6.77/ 12.7.77 was that "the above items of paper are used for a variety of purposes, such as covers and envelopes and hence they...
S. Kumar and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1983
Reported in: (1990)LC725Tri(Delhi)
S. Duggal, Member (J) for herself and on behalf of F.S. Gill, J., S.Venkatesan Sr. V.P.1. This matter before us is as a result of reference having been made by the Regional Bench (North) comprised by Shri M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (Judicial) and Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical). The situation which occasioned the reference arose because the above-stated Bench felt disinclined to endorse the view, held by the same Bench earlier, constituted by two different Members, namely, Shri AJ F.D'Souza, Member (Technical) and Shri A.K. Srinivasmurthy, Member (Judicial) on the question as to whether Additional Collector, Central Excise could be deemed to be a 'Collector' for the purpose of determining the forum of appeal, against an order or decision, passed by the former. This is how the present larger Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Bench) came to be constituted, for resolving the issue.2. The Bench had its first sitting on 18-5-1983, when Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, who is Counse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›