Delhi Court August 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 8 of about 86 results (0.008 seconds)Raj Sulphur Sugar Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2447TriDel
1. The Appellants were working under the componded levy scheme for Khandsari sugar under Rule 92B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This scheme required them to make an advance deposit with the Government of a sum equal to two week's duty. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 92B which is the material rule applicable is reproduced below for ready reference :- "The sum referred to in Sub-rule (2) shall be tendered by the manufacturer at the time of submission of the application under Rule 92C initially for a period of two weeks and thereafter weekly payment shall be made by such manufacturer two days in advance of the week next following, so that at the beginning of every week, such manufacturer's deposit shall be equal to the amount of duty payable by him for two weeks, and the balance out of the duty so deposited, if any, shall be adjusted at the end of the season if so desired, by the manufacturer who had made the deposit." 2. The appellants state that their khandsari season ended in May, 1978.In ...
Tag this Judgment!Neelamalai Tea/Coffee Estates Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2426TriDel
1. Notification No. 198/76-C.E. gave partial concession from Central excise duty to certain specified goods. This concession was in the nature of an incentive for higher production. Tea was one of the commodities eligible for this concession. The instructions issued by the Department required that the assessees desirous of availing of the concession should apply to the Assistant Collector with necessary details of their base period and base period clearances. The instructions further stated that the assessee's refund claim for the incentive rebate would be sanctioned only after the Assistant Collector had approved the Base period and the base period clearances in respect of the concerned assessee.2. The appellants applied to the Assistant Collector for the concession and furnished all the required particulars by 23-5-1978. The period during which they made excess clearances and to which their refund claim pertains is 9-1-79 to 31-3-79. The Assistant Collector, determined their base pe...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT484TriDel
1. The dispute in the present case is whether PVC leather cloth imported by the appellants is entitled to the duty concession under Customs Notification No. 29/79 dated 10-2-1979. The lower authorities rejected the appellants' claim and hence this appeal which has come as transferred proceedings to us from the Central Government in terms of Section 131-B of the Cus- toms Act, 1962 for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before us. Shri L.U. Balani, Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the issue already stood resolved in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in its order No. D-220/83 dated 21-4-1983 reported in 1983 ECR 894 D(CEGAT). The only difference between the decided case and the * present one is that the material in that case was PU leather cloth while it is PVC leather cloth in the present case.2. Shri Sunder Rajan, JDR, submitted that the actual importers who had filed the Bill of Entry were M/s Nehal International and not the appellants. In the decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhsana Sultana Vs. Mohinder Kaur
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1983RLR776
J.D. Jain, J. (1) The plaint in this suit was permitted to be amended in certain respects Vide order dt. 12.4.83 and an amended plaint was directed to be filed accordingly. The defendants were also called upon to file written statements to the amended plaint within a certain period, and they have done so. However, the plaintiff has moved this petition u/O. 6 R. 7 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code (the Code), complaining that in the garb of replying to the amended portion of the plaint the defendants have absolutely changed their original w/s without seeking permission of the Court for amendment. It is contended that the defendants could have amended their w/s only to the extent it was necessary for them to reply to the amended plaint as allowed by the Court and nothing further. Thus, the grievance of the plaintiff is that new grounds of claim and allegations of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the defendants cannot be permitted unless, of course, they seek ame...
Tag this Judgment!Tinplate Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1379DTri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are aggrieved against the impugned order in which the Collector, on review of the Asstt. Collector's order, has held that tinned trimmings were classifiable as cuttings under item 28 of the Central Excise Tarriff and confirmed the demand for duty on 29.32 M.T.of tinned trimmings cleared by the appellants during 1-4-79 to 31-3-80.For ease of reference, the said tariff item is reproduced below :- "28. Tin plate and tinned, lacquered or varnished sheets including tin taggers and cuttings of such plates, sheets or taggers- (1) Tin plate and tinned sheets including tin taggers and cuttings of such plates, sheets or taggers (2) Lacquered sheets, varnished sheets, including cuttings of lacquered sheets and varnished sheets." 2. During the hearing before us today, the appellant's pleas were fourfold :- (1) The goods were trimmings which arose during the process of dressing of tinned sheets. They were not cuttings within the meaning of the tariff item. They were cleared in pr...
Tag this Judgment!Juggilal Kamlapat Cotton Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2445TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved of rejection of their refund claim in respect of lap waste of yarn. The facts of the case are as follows.Notification No. 172/72-C.E., dated 24-7-72 exempted waste yarn (hard waste) falling under item No. 18E of the Central Excise Tariff from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The notification contained an Explanation which specified the eligible types of waste yarn in relation to two categories of yarn-(1) yarn containing more than 40% of cotton and (2) yarn containing 40% or more by weight of wool. Under the first category of yarn, one of the eligible types of waste yarn specified was "yarn not exceeding three metres in length, in loom beam ends commonly known as 'lap waste' or Antri". It is not in dispute in the present appeal that the yarn manufactured by the appellants did not fall in the first category of yarn specified in the Explanation since their yarn contained less than 40% of cotton. The appellants stated during the hearing be...
Tag this Judgment!Rayalaseema Cable Corpn. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2358TriDel
1. In this Revision Application transferred to the Tribunal, to be disposed of as an appeal, the question for decision is classification of 'Bare Aluminium Wires' measuring 10 SWG or less under the Central Excise Tariff whether they should be classified under Tariff Item 33B (II) or Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff.2. The appellants are manufacturers of AA/ACSR conductors. For the purpose, they draw bare aluminium wire measuring less than 10 SWG from out of duty paid aluminium rods. A few strands of the wires so obtained re-twisted for the purpose of making conductors. The appellants were not paying duty on bare aluminium wires of less than 10 SWG made from out of duty paid aluminium rods captively consumed. The Central Excise authorities felt that the wires so obtained were liable to pay Excise duty. They therefore, issued notice to them to Show Cause why for the period 1-9-1980 to 31-12-1980, they should not be called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1,13,803.12. Another Show Cau...
Tag this Judgment!Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2355TriDel
1. In this Revision application to Central Government transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal, question for decision is correctness and legality of five demands totalling Rs. 44,188.76 raised by Superintendent of Central Excise, Rourkela, confirmed by the Asstt.Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela and upheld by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. The appellants on Budget day 28-2-1973, made clearance of G.P.Sheets/G.C. Sheets, Plates/H.R. Strips and C.R. Strips under the supervision of Central Excise authorities. This went on till S.P.M. of 28-2-1973. Thereafter, the appellants' despatches were suspended. The goods were assessed to duty at the rates, as in force on 28-2-1973. It appears that on midnight of 28-2-1973 duty on these goods were enhanced w.e.f. 1-3-1973. The Railway authorities issued Railway receipts bearing date 28-2-1973/1-3-1973 to the appellants. Later, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Rourkela served demands dated 6-7-1973,...
Tag this Judgment!Rajbir Singh and anr. Vs. the State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT379
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The appellants Rajbir Singh, Devi Shankar, and Bhalley Ram have challenged their conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') and the sentence of three and a half years and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 each, awarded to them by Shri D. G. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalley Ram has filed the appeal (Gri. 97/82) from jail. Rajbir Singh and Devi Shankar have jointly filed the second appeal (Crl. A. 225/81) through counsel. This judgment is common to both the appeals. (2) The prosecution case in nutshell was that on April 14,1980 at about 7.00 or 8.15 p.m. in a sudden fight Kishore @ Mithu PW8 was caught by the appellants Rajbir Singh and Devi Shankar and Bhalley Ram after taking out a razor from his pant pocket assaulted him (mithu) on his face causing grievous injuries on his neck. As the learned trial court has noticed facts of the prosecution case in detail in the impugned judgment, no useful p...
Tag this Judgment!Chhottey Lal Gupta Vs. Charan Singh Gupta
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT244
M.L. Jain, J. (1) The family of the respondent landlord Charan Singh Gupta consists of himself, two sons, their wives, three grand-children of the age of 11,9 and 6 and four married daughters. The accommodation in his possession is three living rooms, one store, one kitchen on the first floor, one barsati on the second floor, two dichotic on 6' height, and abasement store. A shop on the ground floor, one store, one more duchattiare there, but they are being used for tailoring work done by his son and his workmen. There is one garage on the ground floor which is mortgaged with one Sharbati Jain. The landlord filed an eviction application against his tenant Chhottey Lal Gupta. The tenant contended that the landlord is not the owner of the premises. He also contended that the accommodation in possession of the landlord is sufficient for his requirements. The Addl.Controller by his order dated 22-11-1932 directed eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hence, t...
Tag this Judgment!