Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 4 of about 72 results (0.021 seconds)Sunder Grover Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2009(244)ELT173(Del); ILR1984Delhi406
Sachar, J.(1) This petition challenges the impugned order passed by the President of India on July 16, 1983 by which he gave one months' notice to the petitioner and further ordered that on the expiry of the period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on him he shall stand reverted to the post of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. As reference to this order has to find place a number of time in the judgment it will be apt to reproduce the impugned order which is as follows : 'In accordance with the provisions .of paragraph 1(6) of this Ministry's memorandum F. No.A-1202619j 82-Ad.lKTrib) dated the 14th September, 1982, concerning the terms and conditions of appointment of Sbri S. Grover as Vice-President in the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal the President is pleased hereby to give one month's notice to Shri Grover and to order that on the expiry of the period of one month from the date on which this notice is served oil him, he sh...
Tag this Judgment!Precision Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT188TriDel
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called "appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal. It arises out of the combined order-in-appeal Nos. 286/77 and 287/77 dated 20-4-1977 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Bombay, which relates to two orders-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division VI, Bombay. Appeal No.ED(SB)(T) A. No. 163/77D, arising out of the same order-in-appeal of the Appellate Collector, and relating to the Assistant Collector's order-in-original No. V(52)l 5-17/76/1268 dated 27-1-1977, has been disposed of separately, as having been withdrawn. This appeal arises out of the order-in-original No. V(Misc.)Coll/19/75-Pt. II-1375 dated 29-1-1977, dealt with in the same combined order-in-appeal of the Appellate Collector.2. This case...
Tag this Judgment!Gaekwar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2491TriDel
1. This appeal, against the order dated 21-2-83 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), relates to the classification of a particular variety of fabric, known as Sort No. 89225, manufactured by the appellants. There is no dispute regarding the composition of this fabric, which contains 33% polyester, 32% viscose and 35% cotton.Polyester is a non-cellulosic man-made fibre, while viscose is a cellulosic man-made fibre. The appellants have contended that the fabric falls under Item 22 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, whereas the authorities below have taken the view that it falls under Item No. 19 of the said Tariff Schedule.2. Relevant extracts from the aforesaid tariff items are given below :- Item No. 19. Cotton Fabrics "Cotton Fabrics" means all varieties of fabrics manufactured either wholly or partly from cotton and includes dhoties, sarees, chadders, bed-sheets, bed-spreads, counterpanes, table-cloths, embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs and fabrics impregn...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Chemical Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC1911DTri(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 & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal, for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The appellants are manufacturers of Sodium Silicate. The appellants claim is that they were entitled to the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978. One of the condition laid down in the said notification was that the aggregate value of goods cleared for home consumption during the period 1-4-1977 to 28-2-1978 should not have exceeded Rs. 13.75 lakhs. Only if the manufacturer fulfilled this condition, would he be eligible to the benefit of the notification in the financial year to follow, namely, 1978-79. It is the claim of the appellants that certain goods which were cleared during the period 1-4-1977 to 28-2-1978 were returned by their customers, that they were received back in the f...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2403TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government, which under Section 35-P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case have been succinctly stated in the Appellate Collector's order, the relevant portion of which we reproduce hereunder :- "Among other things, appellants manufacture Artificial and Synthetic Resins falling under Tariff Item No. 15A (i). As they wanted to avail of the benefit of 25% reduction in the rate of duty as contemplated in Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-6-1976, their clearances during the years 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, were considered for arriving at the base clearance quota. The clearances during 1973-74, being the highest, were considered as the " base clearance quantity for availing of the above benefit and was approved accordingly. The base clearance quantity was comprise...
Tag this Judgment!Duli Chand Vs. Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1984Delhi144; 25(1984)DLT70; 1984(6)DRJ153
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) M/S. Mahabir Pershad Tirlok Chand Charitable Trust was the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal has arisen. The suit was filed for possession of a portion on the ground floor of property No. 2231 and shop No. 2232 situated in Masjid Khazoor, Dharmpura, Delhi. Mesne profits were also claimed. The case of the plaintiff was that Shri Babu Ram was a statutory tenant in the said property ; the contractual tenancy had been terminated by a notice given by Shrimati Vidya Wati, the owner of the property on 19th May, 1972. It claimed that Shri Babu Ram became statutory tenant from 1st July, 1972. On 30th April, 1975, Shri Babu Ram had died and thereafter Shri Duli Chand came into possession of the said property and was nothing more than a trespasser. (2) The suit was tried by a Subordinate Judge First Class who decreed the suit with costs granting possession in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant and also a decree for Rs. 99.00 as rent/damages. Shri Duli Chand...
Tag this Judgment!National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2052DTri(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 & Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal, for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. At the outset Shri A.K. Jain, SDR, submitted that despite written and telephonic requests to the Collector, he has not received the relevant records and that a short adjournment of the hearing should be granted. Shri A.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the Appellants, however, submitted that he would confine his arguments to what is available in the papers already furnished by him. After considering the matter we rejected Shri Jain's request for adjournment.3. Shri Bedi submitted that in his Order-in-Review dated 2-5-1980, the Collector passed orders reviewing the Order-in Original bearing No.8/D/CE-79 dated 27-2-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana. In para 4 of his order, the Collector h...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2067TriDel
1. The goods which are the subject-matter of controversy in the present appeal, are described by the appellant, who is the manufacturer thereof, as "Hub-Bolts and Nuts". Prior to 1-3-1979, Tariff Item 34A of the Central Excise Tariff, as then prevailing, covered "all parts and accessories of motor vehicles not otherwise specified". However, by virtue of Notification No. 99/71-C.E., dated 29-5-1971, as amended from time to time, that enumerated 12 items, as specified motor vehicle parts, excepting the items covered by the said Notification, all others were exempt from duty. The appellant went on clearing the subject goods accordingly, availing benefit of the said Notification.2. However, by means of the Finance Bill covering 1979 Budget, a change was brought in the T.I. 34A inasmuch as it was made to relate to specific items (15 in number), which change became effective with effect from 10-5-1979. The genesis of the dispute giving rise to the present appeal can be traced to this change...
Tag this Judgment!Reichhold Chemicals India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT164TriDel
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 herein concerns two products called POLYLITE 8001 and POLYLITE 93-410 manufactured and cleared by the appellants during the period November 1965 to 31-5-1970 without payment of duty on the ground that, they were 'Alkyd resins' within the ambit of Central Excise Notification No. 156/65, dated 23-9-1965. The Department took the view that the two products were not alkyd resins but unsaturated polyester resins, not eligible to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification.Accordingly, by a notice dated 7-9-1970, the appellants were called upon to show cause why excise duty to the tune of Rs. 4,66,294.57 should not be demanded from them, for the period 1965 to 31-5-1970, in terms of Rule 10-A of the Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!O.P. Sanghi Vs. Manufacturers Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 24(1983)DLT296
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This is an application under Order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of defendant' 1 to 3 seeking leave to place on record copies of the resolutions dated 27th May, 1971, 10th June, 1972, 14th July, 1972, 28th September, 1972 30th November, 1972, 28th March, 1973 and 28th September, 1973 alleged to have been passed in the meetings of the Board of Directors of defendant No. 1 and a Copy of ledger Folio No. 312 and 318 of 1973-74. (2) It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is a Go-operative society that it takes decision by passing resolutions from time to time, that the minute book of the defendant No. 1 was put in cross-examination toP.W.3 Sardar Singh who was treasurer of defendant No, 1. It is alleged' that the said copies were prepared by the witness D.W. 1 and attested by the Joint Director of Industries, that the documents are relevant and necessary for the decision of the suit, that relevancy and genuineness cannot be dispute...
Tag this Judgment!