Delhi Court April 1984 Judgments

Sheila Devi Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1984Delhi501

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) Cm No. 279.84 In Fra 540/69. This is an application for amendment of the memorandum of appeal under Order Vi Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.(2) These are the facts. The appellant, Sheila Devi, purchased certain land in 1957 bearing Khasra No. 346 measuring 5 bighas 8 bids was in village Kilokari at the rate of Rs. 5 per square yard by sale deed dated 9th May, 1957. Her land was acquired pursuant to the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act), dated 16th May, 1961. In due course the Land Acquisition Collector made the award (Award No. 1218). He offered compensation to the owner at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per bigha. On a reference under section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,000 per bigha. From his order the appellant appeals to this court.(3) In the memorandum of appeal originally filed on 18-11-1.969 she claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard. The pre...

Containers Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. HR/2/83 dated 19.2.1983 of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. In this order the Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants. He had confiscated metal containers valued at Rs. 50,977 seized from them, with the option to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of confiscation, and ordered them to pay excise duty on metal containers valued at Rs. 27,29,098 held to have been manufactured by them with the aid of power and removed illicitly between 1.5.1979 and 26.11.1980.2. The Department's case is that the appellants were using electric power in the manufacture of metal containers falling under Item 46 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and were therefore not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification No. 94/70-C.E. dated 1.5.1970, which was in force at the relevant time. That notification exempted only those metal containers in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process was ordinarily carried on w...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. U.P. Ceramics and Potteries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)(17)ELT531TriDel

1. In this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, the question raised is whether the tableware (cups, saucers, plates, etc.) manufactured by the respondents is "terracotta" as claimed by the respondents or "glazed clayware" as contended by the Department. The controversy arises out of the wording of Item 23B of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule, the description of which runs as follows :- "Chinaware" includes all glazed clayware but does not include terracotta.2. The respondents had sought the classification of the goods under Item 68. After consideration of their arguments, the Assistant Collector, in his order dated 15-11-80, held that the goods were "glazed clayware" and accordingly classifiable under Item23B. In reaching this conclusion, the Assistant Collector, having regard to various authorities held that the articles were "glazed clayware". He further held that, according to the various authorities, terracotta was an article of archaeological and aesthetic value a...

Porritts and Spencer (Asia) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT115TriDel

1. The appellants imported special papermaker's wool blended with special papermaker's synthetic polyester. The goods were assessed to Customs Duty under the residuary Item No. 87 of the Indian Customs Tariff then in force at the rate of 60% plus 10% adv. The appellants applied for refund claiming reassessment at 40% plus 5"% adv. under 'item No. 46(2) I.C.T. as "wool, raw, and wooltops". At the time of hearing before the Asstt. Collector, they made an alternative claim for reassessment under Item 46(4)(b) as "all other un-manufactured textile materials not otherwise specified". The Asstt. Collector rejected their claim under Item 46(2) on the ground that synthetic polyester contents of the goods varied from 19% to 25% which was not a small or negligible percentage and hence the goods could not be considered raw wool. He rejected the claim under the alternative Item 46(4)(b) saying that it was "a fresh ground for refund" and the same was time barred. The Appellate Collector considered...

Raja Radio Company Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)(0)LC869Tri(Delhi)

1. These 5 appeals had been preferred as Revision Petitions to the Government of India against the orders in appeal of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay dated 13.3.1980 under which he had dismissed appeals confirming the order of the Assistant Collector.These revision petitions have been transferred to this Tribunal under Section 131B of the Customs Act and are being disposed of as appeals.2. The applications by the appellant were to claim refund of customs duty collected. They had been rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that the claims for refund were time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. This conclusion was upheld by the Appellate Collector and the only point to be considered in these appeals is therefore whether the claims were time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act or not.3. Admittedly the claims had been preferred beyond the six months period specified in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. But Shri P.G.Gokhale, Advocate ...

Maharaj Prithvi Raj Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1984)9ITD792(Delhi)

1. As common points are involved in these cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue in the cases of Maharaj Prithvi Raj (individual) and Maharaj Prithvi Raj (HUF) for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order.2. Maharaj Prithvi Raj is one of the four sons of Sawai Man Singhji, late Maharaja of Jaipur. It was held by the Tribunal in the case of the said Sawai Man Singh [IT Appeal No. 1534 (Delhi) of 1977-78], for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 that he headed a HUF, constituted by him, his wife and his four sons. Sawai Man Singh died in June 1970 intestate. At that time HUF consisted of Sawai Man Singh, his four sous and his wife. Under proviso to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as Sawai Man Singh left a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule to the said section, the interest of the deceased devolved by intestate succession under the said Act.3. The revenue has not acce...

Jai Hind Process and Printing Vs. Collector of Customs and Central

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)LC457Tri(Delhi)

1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government (now transferred to the Appellate Tribunal Under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944) against the order in review No. V.MISC/2-2/OA/79, dated 12-5-1980 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as are apparent on record are that the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of M/s.Jaihind Process and Printing Depot (hereinafter called the appellants) on 7-5-1977 and found that the appellants were manufacturing Waxed Papers with the aid of power without obtaining any excise licence as required under rule 174 of the Central Excises Rules, 1944, for the manufacture of Waxed Papers. On enquiries it was found that the appellants had manufactured Waxed Papers for various parties on job basis and did not pay the excise duty on the manufactured product i.e.waxed paper, and therefore, a show cause notice dated 6-4-1978 was served upon...

The Malt Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)LC1570Tri(Delhi)

1. The present application is for modification of the Order No. 123 & 124/84-C dated 27.2.1984 passed by this Bench on Stay Application Nos.1051 & 1052/83-C. In the said Order, the Bench had noted that the statements of accounts furnished by the Applicants were un-audited statements and that they did not show the profit/loss, of the Applicants for the periods covered by the statement of accounts. The Bench was not satisfied on the basis of the material placed before it that undue hardship was likely to be caused to the Applicants if they were called upon to deposit the amounts of duty adjudged against them.They were, therefore, directed to deposit the amounts within a period of six weeks.2. In the present application, which is accompanied by statements of accounts audited by a firm of Chartered Accountants, if has been prayed that the matter might be heard again. Accordingly, we have heard both sides today and we are satisfied on the basis of the material placed before us and ...

Chowgule and Co. (Hind) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1985)LC99Tri(Delhi)

1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application to the Central Government against the Order-in-Appeal No. II-1517/75, dated 23-2-1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay whereby he confirmed the Order No. V (ISA) 2-5/74/4046, dated 1-3-1975 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay.On the setting up of this Tribunal, it came to be transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for being disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. In order to have a proper understanding of the dispute involved herein, it is expedient to straightaway refer to and set out relevant portions of certain notifications issued by the Central Government under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rule (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) :- "GSR. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government...

Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Addisons Paints and Chemicals

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT662TriDel

1. This appeal dated 14th November, 1983 has been filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras against Order-in-Appeal No.290/83(M) dated 26-8-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras.2. M/s. Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. of Madras received nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber, assessed under Item 68, into their factory for the manufacure of paints etc. They were given duty credit for the duty paid on the nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber under the terms of Notification 201/79-C.E. From 1-3-1982, nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber became assessable under Item 15A.The Central Excise found that on that day M/s. Addisons Paints & Chemicals still had in stock unutilised stocks of nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber. They came to the conclusion that as the assessment of nitrocellulose and chlorinated rubber had changed from Item 68 to Item 15A, the raw materials still in stock on 1-3-1982 wore not entitled to duty credit under Notification 20...