Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 2 of about 72 results (0.019 seconds)Gujarat Reclaim and Rubber Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2401TriDel
1. This is an appeal against order No. 1262/79 dated nil passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bombay.2. The factory, Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd., Ankleshwar (Gujarat) cleared some quantities of goods they call hard rubber. This hard rubber is obtained by crushing waste rubber into powder. At the time of the argument on 27-9-83 the counsel for the appellant raised a number of arguments in favour of the appeal. One of the argument was that the crushing of the hard rubber did not amount to manufacture as there was no chemical change or reaction and the new product was chemically and in all other properties the same as the rubber from which it was obtained except that it was in powder form.3. The learned counsel for the department however opposed the argument saying that the crushing operation produced a powder form for where there was no such powder form in existence before. The goods have been sold and this proves that it was a marketable pro...
Tag this Judgment!Nellimarala Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT419TriDel
1. The short question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as a revision application to the Govt. of India is whether Compound ball and roller bearing valued at Rs. 8,143/-c.i.f. should have been classified under heading 84.62(1) of the CTA as claimed by the appellants or under heading 84.62(2) of the CTA as done by the lower authorities.2. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 27-8-76 rejected the appellants' claim for classification under heading 84.62(1). The order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta by his order dated 1-4-77. Hence the present appeal.3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri S.K. Chatterjee, learned Consultant for the appellants submitted that as the goods were prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, the specific heading 84.62(1) should have been preferred. Heading 84.62(2) was not applicable in the appellants' case. He also relied on tariff Public Notice 115/76, dated 14-12-1976 wherein it h...
Tag this Judgment!Enfield India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT166TriDel
1. The Advocate for the Appellants referred to the following orders-in-appeal: - and stated that since all these cases involve common points of law, they should be heard and disposed of together. He stated that the appellants are manufacturers of agro-industrial engines -34-CC Model for Farm and Industry. They import a small percentage of components required by them and by manufacturing or procuring the other components within the country they assemble the engines at their factory. These engines are fitted as prime-mover for several agricultural and industrial equipments like Sprayers, Lawn Movers, Battery Charging Sets in Defence, Power Boats, etc. In the case under consideration, the Appellants imported magneto coils which are component parts of these agro-industrial engines manufactured by them. (In the Appeal No.572/83, the goods imported are contact sets which are the components of the magneto coils and as such of the starting units of the engines).These magneto coils are parts o...
Tag this Judgment!Photophone Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT168TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as revision application to the government of India, is classification of High Frequency Speaker Unit imported by the appellants by B.E. No.Cash-1229 dated 9-4-1975 whether for the purpose of countervailing duty the goods should not have been classified under Tariff Item 37A(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff, as done by the lower authorities.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Cinematograph Projectors falling under Item No. 37B of the Central Excise Tariff. They contend that they do not manufacture Gramophones, Record Players, Record laying decks, Record changer decks or parts and accessories thereof falling under T.I. No. 37A. The appellants obtained an Import Licence bearing No.P/S/1789414 dated 4-12-1972 for import of components for the manufacture of sound projection and audio-visual equipment. Pursuant to this licence, the appellants imported 128 High Frequency Speakers Units as component parts of the said equipment, ...
Tag this Judgment!Metal Extruders (i) Pvt. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT148TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal to the Tribunal is whether the demand of duty from the appellants in respect of Brass Rods & wires for the period 23-5-1979 to 30-4-1980 and 3-5-1980 to 30-6-1980 classifying them under T.I. 68 of C.E.T. made by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order dated 28-1-1981 and upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 23-2-1983 is correct.2. The appellants are holders of L-4 Licence No. l/Copper/77 for the manufacture of products falling under Copper and Copper Alloys Item No.26A of C.E.T. in their factory at Plot No. A-142/149, Road No. 23/24, Wagle Industrial Estate, Bombay Thane.The Superintendent of Central Excise, Thane issued show cause notices dated 8-7-1980 for the period 23-5-1979 to 30-4-1980 calling upon the appellants to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Thane why duty of Rs. 5,35,755.64 be not realised from them. A similar notice dated 21-8-1930 for the per...
Tag this Judgment!Oswal Wollen Mills Ltd., Ludhiana Vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bom ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1984(18)ELT203(Del)
G.C. Jain, J.1. Messrs Oswal Wollen Mills Ltf., Ludhiana, the petitioner, applied to the Textile Commissioner, Bombay, for grant of essentiality certificate for the import from Italy of one Tentering Machine used for the manufacture of woollen. Along with the application the petitioner submitted a proforma invoice of the Italian manufacturers, the Asienda Termotecnica Italiana (ATI) Milan, Italy, showing the value of the machine at U.S. $ 34000. On the basis of the said application the petitioners were ultimately granted an import license dated January 19, 1967 for p$ 3,30,500/- (on devaluation basis) by the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay. The petitioners, it is alleged, while negotiating with the representatives of the manufacturers requested for the reduction in the price by 20 per cent. The manufacturer's representative agreed to the reduction and sent the manufacturer's acceptance as per their letter dated March 17, 1966 (Annexure B) reducing the price from U.S. $ ...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Mohan Behl Vs. Veena Rani
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi185; 1984(6)DRJ30; 1984RLR57
A.B. Rohatgi, J.(1) The husband, Madan Mohan Behl, has brought a petition for divorce against the wife, Veena Rani. The petition is founded on one ground only. The ground is that the wife has ceased to be a Hindu. She has embraced Islam (Section 13(1)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act) ). The wife is contesting the petition. She has denied her conversation to Islam as alleged by the husband.(2) During the pendency of the petition the wife made an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act for maintenance for herself and the child. There is one child of the marriage. She is a girl, Ruchi by name. She is about 10 years old. She is studying in a school. This application was opposed by the husband mainly on two grounds : (1) that the wife had convened herself to Islam, and (2) that she has remarried. One Walia who is also a convert to Islam is said to have married her. Both these grounds were denied by the wife. There was nothing to show before the learned Additional District Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Glaxo Orthopedic U.K. Ltd. Vs. Samrat Pharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi265; 1984RLR291
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) [PLAINTIFFS have sued Deft. for Injunction for infringement of their Trade Mark and Copyright about their Glucons-D & Glucon-D. They complain that Deft. is selling his product Glucose-D in cartons deceptively similar to their, by having similar lay-out, get-up, colour combination & arrangement and is passing off his inferior goods as those of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs applied for interim injunction placing on record documents showing that they are registered owners and users of the trade mark and copyright in question. Deft. made an application saying that Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction. After giving details, Single Judge disposed of the 2 applications thus :(2) It is apparent from a plain reading of S. 62(2), Copyright Act that the territorial jurisdiction with respect to any suit or other civil proceeding in respect of infringement of the copyright shall be the place where the plaintiffs or if there are more than one, any one of them is residing, carrying on bu...
Tag this Judgment!Ranjit Ram Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2086TriDel
1. The short questions in this revision application, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as an appeal, are as to whether- (a) Section 123 applies to the alleged recovery of certain gold biscuits with foreign markings from the Appellant; (b) if not, is there any evidence on record to justify the imposition of a penalty in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold Control Act, 1968. (a) on 12-2-1973, a party of Police Officers in Sirsa apprehended the Appellant and recovered on search two gold biscuits with foreign markings. The Police then prepared a recovery memo and also recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C.; (b) the Police officers who had participated in the search in the preparation of the recovery memo and in recording the Appellant's statement had not been examined in the proceedings instituted under the Gold Control Act, 1968 and the Customs Act, 1962; (c) nevertheless, it was the recovery memo recorded by the Police and the statement under Se...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-i Vs. Madan Mohan Lall Sh ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1985]153ITR134(Delhi)
Chadha, J. 1. These two sets of references can be disposed of by a common order. Income-tax References Nos. 84 to 89 of 1975 under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the Department raise the following questions : '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to set off loss under the head 'Business' from the dividend income while computing the rebate under section 85A for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to deduct from the gross dividend income the proportionate expenditure claimed to be allocable to the earning of dividend while calculating rebate under section 85A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances...
Tag this Judgment!