Delhi Court August 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.
Phoenix Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC2231DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. C-408/B1I-86/83 dated 4.3.83 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Two issues are involved in this case. One is whether the order of the Assistant Collector demanding duty on 'Chromic Acid1 manufactured by the appellants on job work basis is time-barred or not. The second issue is whether a duty can be levied on chromic acid manufactured by the appellants on job work basis; 3. Shri Habbu, on behalf of the appellants, stated that the demand for duty was clearly time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which provides that the demand for duty alleged to have been short-levied can only relate to six months prior to\the date of demand and such a period can be extended to five years only where the assessee was guilty of collusion, fraud or suppression or mis-statement of facts. In this connection, Shri Habbu brought to our notice that there was no question of...
Poonam Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1362DTri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals involve a common point at issue and relate to the same appellants and they were, therefore, taken up for consideration together.2. The short point involved in these appeals is whether sub-merged arc welding wires and CO2 wires are classifiable under item 50 of the Central Excise Tariff which covers "welding electrodes, all sorts". The lower authorities held that item 50 covered these wires and since the appellants were found manufacturing and clearing these wires without taking out a Central Excise licence, and without payment of duty, they were subjected to penalty and confiscation of their goods. Duty on the goods cleared by them was also demanded from the appellants.3. The appellants' plea is that in trade parlance their wires, which are nothing but copper coated steel wires, are not known as electrodes, that their wires could not be called electrodes since no electric current passes through them, that their wires were only a welding media and not electrodes, t...
Ganeshdas Kayan and Sons Textiles Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1354DTri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the first appeal of the appellants was rejected by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as time-barred on the ground that it was filed after the period of three months laid down in Section 35 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, as then existing. The Order-in Original was received by the appellants on 10 4.1981 while their appeal before the Beard had been filed only on 13.7.1981. The appellants do not dispute these dates. Their pleas are three-fold : (1) The first appeal was not time-barred as the demand for duty pursuant to the Order-in-Original was sent to the appellants on 19/ 20-5-1981. In such a case the time-limit for filing the appeal ought to be counted from the date of communication of the duty demand. For this, the appellants relied on Govt. of India's Order-in-Revision reported at 1980 ELT-786. The appellants argued that the present appeal had been filed as a revision application before the Central Govt. and had it been disposed of by the Central...
Birla Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT179TriDel
1. The point of dispute involved in this appeal is whether customs duty assessed under the prior entry system in anticipation of the arrival of the importing vessel can be re-assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 after arrival of the vessel or Section 17(4) of the Act bars such re-assessment.2. The case was heard at length by us on 15-7-83, 26-7-83 and 9-8-83.The facts, in brief, are that Exemption Notification No. 8/79-CUS dated 5-1-1979 fixed a concessional rate of import duty of Rs. 1.32 per kg.for Viscose Staple Fibre. The appellants imported a consignment of this commodity. They presented a Bill of Entry under Section 46 on 25-9-1979 in anticipation of the arrival of the importing vessel. The proper officer assessed the duty on the consignment at the rate of Rs. 1.32 per kg. The appellants paid the duty so assessed on 9-10-1979. The ship carrying the consignment arrived at Sand Heads at the Port of Calcutta and within the territorial wa...
Indian Plastics and Chemicals Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT495TriDel
1.This is a revision application filed by the appellants before the Central Government which is now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section (2) of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the "Aqueous solution of Phenol Formaldehyde", called as "Novastik", manufactured by the appellants would fall under tariff item No. 15A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 or not. The Appellate Collector had held that the said product, even if it is in the form of aqueous solution, would be covered by tariff item No. 15A as that item includes artificial or synthetic resins in any form. Aggrieved by this order the appellants are before us.3. On behalf of the appellants, Shri J.J. Bhatt, the learned advocate, contended that prior to 1-3-1982, the words "solutions and dispersions of synthetic resins" did not appear in the tariff item 15A as it stood at that time. Further, he submitted that the product manufactured by the...
Krishna and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2017TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is appropriate classification of goods claimed to be relief valves- whether they should be classified under heading 84.61(2) of CTA as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.10(3) as done by the lower authorities.2. The appellants by B/E 2477/216 imported 2 cases of spare parts of Earth moving machinery. In the invoice the goods are described as relief valves. At the time of clearance appellants claimed classification under heading 84.11(1) of C.T.A. The authorities classified the goods under Heading 84.10(3) of CTA. The appellants applied to the Asstt. Collector for reclassification under heading 84.61 of CTA and refund. The Asstt. Collector by his order No.8/26-A6/827 issued on 14-9-1982 confirmed the original classification and rejected the claim for refund. The order was upheld on appeal by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by his order issued on 20-1-1983.Hence the present appeal.3. Though in the memo of appea...
Atlas Shoe Company Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: (1983)6ITD188(Delhi)
1. These three appeals by Atlas Shoe Co., New Delhi, a registered firm, directed against the consolidated order of the AAC, dated 26-11-1981, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The years of assessments involved are 1975-76 to 1977-78 for which the respective previous years ended on 31-3-1975, 31-3-1976 and 31-3-1977. In the years under consideration the assessee carried on business of manufacture and sale of PVC footwears.2. In respect of its new industrial undertaking the ITO for each of the years under consideration allowed deduction to the assessee under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of Rs. 25,947 in the assessment year 1975-76, Rs. 27,823 in the assessment year 1976-77, and Rs. 25,938 in the assessment year 1977-78. While computing the above deductions, it is an admitted position that the ITO while computing the capital basis for the purpose of aforesaid deductions had taken into acc...
Sharma Clothiers Private Ltd. Vs. Apparels Export Promotion Council an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT291
S.S. Chadha, J.(1) This petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be disposed of on a narrow question of Jaw. (2) The petitioner brought a suit for permanent injunction against M/s. Apparels Export Promotion Council (respondent No. 1) and M/s. Mercantile Bank (respondent No. 2) praying that respondent No. I be restrained from demanding/realizing from the petitioner, its guarantors and sureties any amount including a sum of Rs. 63,038.80 under the bank guarantee furnished by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for a restraint order against respondent No. 2 restraining it from making any payment under the bank guarantee to respondent No. 1. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for interim relief. The trial Court vide its order dated August 23, 1980 on a perusal of the guarantee bond and on the facts and circumstances of the case vacated the ex...
Harish Bansal Etc. Vs. Moti Films (P) Ltd. Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Aug-18-1983
Reported in: [1986]59CompCas925(Delhi); 25(1984)DLT92
Sachar, J.(1) This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which be directed the deletion of .the name of respondents 2-to 5 in a petition for winding up filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act against Respondent No. I a Private Limited Company. Respondents are one family; namely respondent No. 3 is the father of, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 4 is the wife of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 5 is the mother of respondent No. 2. (2) It is pleaded in the petition that the company was floated and incorporated by the appellants along with Ramesh Kumar Bhandari, respondent No. 2 who was a' fast friend of the appellants. The petition is filed by one set of husband and wife as petitioners Nos. I and 2 and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 as another set husband and wife. It is claimed that the company was floated to give equal preference to the three groups as all three' of them were good friends. Respondent No. 3 was said to be ] conversant with business and that is ...
J.K. Export Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-17-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2390TriDel
1. The Appellants M/s. O.K. Export Industries are manufacturers of Vegetable Non-essential Oil. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in his Adjudication Order dated 3-9-82 has held that the appellants had fabricated, manufactured and installed one Soyabin Dal Plant in their factory premises which was dutiable under item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Accordingly he issued a demand for payment of Central Excise duty amounting to about Rs. 25.000/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules and imposed personal penalty of Rs. 15.000/- on the Appellants under Rule 173-Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In their appeal to the Tribunal, the appellants have stated that the question involved is whether the Dal Mill which is attached to earth should be charged to duty under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Advocate for the Appellants has stated that the Dal Mill in question cannot be called "goods" and accordingly cannot be subjected to Central E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »