Delhi Court August 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 86 results (0.020 seconds)Spinning Accessories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1806TriDel
1. Appellants have filed this appeal to the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal No. 21-CE/JPR/81 dated 15-2-82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. By the said order appellants appeal against order in original No. V(68)35/CE(iii)/80/1238 dated 4-3-81 passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur confirming the demand of Rs. 39,700.18 from the appellants was dismissed as barred by limitation.2. The Appellate Collector held that order-in-original was received by the appellants on 6-2-1981 and the appeal filed by them on 7-5-1981.There was thus delay of one day in filing the appeal which could not be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the same being not applicable to proceeding under the Central Excise Act.3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri K.G. Sooji, Consultant for the appellants submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants was in fact not time-barred. The proforma of the order-in-original received by the appellants had columns ...
Tag this Judgment!Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC(1977)DTri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The dispute before us has had a long and chequered career spanning a period of nearly a decade and a half and has run the gamut of a claim, appeal, revision application, a Writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, Asstt. Collector's order in pursuance of the Court's decision, appeal and revision petition. It is the last mentioned matter that has come up before us as transferred proceedings in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act.3. The dispute was in respect of levy of excise duty on a product called "Tread Gum" manufactured by the appellants during the period 6-8-1962 to 3-1-1971. The appellants (MRF, for short) centended that the product was not chargeable with exci...
Tag this Judgment!Measureall Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2045TriDel
1. The Revision Application u/s. 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 against order No. 436/76 (M) C. No. V/68/45/76 dt. 30-5-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Madras, has been transferred by tie Government of India to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Sec. 35P (2) of the Act.2. The Appellants manufacture Ambar Charkhas and spare parts in the factory where they employ more than 0 workers and use power. On 1-3-75 Tariff item No. 68 covering all other goods not otherwise specified was introduced into the first Schedule of the Central Excises Act and this factory came under its purview. On 3-6-75 they attached a certificate dated 23-5-1975 from the Director (Cotton Khadi) of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission No. CKH/Inst/St-75-76 dated 23-5-76 to the effect that the weaving implements and spares manufactured by the firm are as per the specific orders of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission and come within the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Plastic Powders (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1818DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application addressed to the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35P) against the order-in-appeal No. 478-B of 1979 issued under F.No. 194/63/76-CX.V(A) dated 6-11-1979 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi.2. In this case, the appellants declared their goods Phenolic resins as falling under tariff item No. 15A1(i) of the Central Excise Tariff and claimed assessment at the concessional rate of 18% ad valorem in terms of notification No. 122/71 dated 1-6-1971, as amended.3. Shri Mookherjee, on behalf of the appellants, straightway drew our attention to the aforesaid notification and stated that explanation (iii) of that notification entitles the appellants for the concessional rate of duty. For ready reference, he has quoted the relevant portions of the said notification as follows : "...the Central Government hereby exempts artificial or synthetic resins specified in column (2) of the Table below, f...
Tag this Judgment!O.E.N. (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT137TriDel
1. The Collector of Customs Cochin passed the impugned order on 27-3-1982. Against this order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs but the same was later transferred to this Appellate Tribunal under Section 131-B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Briefly, the case of the appellants is that the values declared by them in the invoices for the import of finished electronic products, equipments machines, spares, raw materials etc. from M/s. OAK Industries Inc Crystal Lake, USA (hereinafter referred to as OAK) are in accordance' with the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). They have challenged the Collector's order with regard to the loading of invoices of the above mentioned finished articles, components and raw materials by 100% of the f.o.b. value. They have also challenged the charge of mis-declaration under Section 111(m) of the Act and the levy of penalty under Section 112 ibid.3. The ma...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Electronic Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2394TriDel
1. The proceedings relating to proposed review under Section 131 (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Government of India of order-in-appeal No.56/81, dated 17-2-81 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Delhi on the appeal of M/s. Electronic Industries (the Respondents) against an order dated 20-3-81 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Foreign Post, New Delhi have been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal under the provisions of section of the Act.2. The Respondents imported synthetic industrial diamonds via post parcel D. No. 245879 which was released on 21-7-79 after payment of customs duty @ 100% plus 20% under heading 92.01/13, CTA plus CVD @ 8% under item 68, GET. A claim for assessment under heading 71.02 read with Notification No. 98/78 (should be 131/77) @ 40%. The claim was rejected since note 2(1) of Chapter 71 excludes goods covered among others by Chapter 92 and the goods are used for record player needles i.e. musical instruments. Further, according to Explanatory ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hydraulics Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT254TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras through this reference application purporting to be under Section 35-G(l) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act), requires the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court two questions of law which are set out in Serial No. 8 of the application for reference.2. The application for reference has been filed beyond the time prescribed for such application. An application for condonation of delay in terms of proviso to Section 35 G(l) has also been filed along with application for reference.4. At the date of hearing, the representative of the non-applicants stated that they had not been served with the copy of the application or other documents and requested that they may be supplied with the same before the matter was heard.5. The Tribunal felt a doubt about the maintainability of the application filed by the applicant. It was felt that before the non-applicants after being provided with all the papers take acti...
Tag this Judgment!insulation and Ele. Products Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984RLR184
Sachar and Khanna, JJ. (1) We have already dilated at length on the different legal contentions raised in the connected writ petition No. 396 of 1978, which was heard along with the present petition. The respondent's counsel has not disputed before us that so far as tendering of amounts by cheques, it is the dates of the tendering of the cheques with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) which should he taken into account for the purpose of computation of delay, if any, for levy of damages, and not the dates of the actual encashment of the cheques. This, of course, is subject to the cheques being honoured. The respondents' counsel further assured that discrepancies in the computation of delays and damages in this regard will be rectified by the RPFC, and the petitioners Will be at liberty to point them out to him. (2) Notwithstanding that we are disposing of the petitions we make it clear and the respondents' counsel accept that if any of the petitioners are able to show that...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India and or ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1984Delhi60
Sachar, J. (1) This group of petitions were heard together. All of them are directed against the respective orders of respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner imposing damages under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be called Act). Many of the points raised are common and will stand decided in all the petitions by the decision given in one of the petition. We shall however deal with each petition separately, also. (2) Section 5 of 1952 Act empowers the Central Government to frame a scheme to be called Employees Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of Provident Funds under the Act, . . . and there shall be established, after the framing of a scheme a Fund. Section 6 of the 1952 Act provides for payment of contributions by the employer to the Fund of six and a quarter percent of the basic wages payable to the employee and employee's contribution, which shall be equal to the contribution payable by the emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Sudesh Kaushal Vs. Darshan Bala
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(7)DRJ83
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-7-82 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi where by the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce in favor of the wife.(2) The respondent wife filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty. It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married at Delhi on 10-3-78 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage the parties resided together and cohabited as husband and wife- at the residence of the appellant for a week. The appellant was not satisfied with the dowry and he started maltreating, abusing and taunting the petitioner every now and then. The respondent visited her parents on or about 17-3-78. and narrated this fact to her brother and parents who pacified her that things would become normal in due course. The respondent was sent by the appellant to...
Tag this Judgment!