Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 5 of about 76 results (0.020 seconds)Citric India Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC94Tri(Delhi)
1. This order of the Collector F. No. TC-955/81/372 dated 26-4-1983 has now been appealed before us by M/s. Citric India Limited of Nasik in their appeal dated 30-5-1983. Much arguments were presented before us by the two learned Counsels who argued on behalf of the department and on behalf of M/s. Citric India Ltd. for several days, the last being 7-1-1985. The first arguments were advanced by the learned Mr. Lahoty on behalf of M/s. Citric India. He said that the Collector was mistaken to hold that the citric acid manufactured by them could not be classed as a pharmaceutical as its predominant use was mainly in things like beverages, confectionery etc. and that its use as a pharmaceutical was not indicated. We agree with M/s. Citric India that the Collector was wrong in this assessment. It is quite true that the predominant use for citric acid is elsewhere than in pharmaceutical, the substance being widely used as an acidifier; but we cannot agree that this will mean that citric aci...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Travancore Chemical and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT413TriDel
1. In this case the respondents imported eight consignments of copper scrap which were assessed to basic duty under entry 74.01/02 of the Customs Tariff and additional duty under Item 26A (lb) of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondents paid the duty and cleared the goods.Subsequently they claimed a refund on the ground that central excise duty was leviable only on goods manufactured and since the copper scrap imported by them was not a manufactured item, no central excise duty was leviable in respect of such products in India. Since central excise duty is not leviable on such an article, no additional customs duty would be leviable on import of such an item. Respondents claim for refund of duty was rejected by the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Cochin but allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellant in this case, namely, Collector of Customs, Cochin has now filed an appeal before CEGAT against this order, holding that it is not proper and against law. Shri S.C...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Lal Vs. Sohan Lal Bahl and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT208
R.K. Ahooja, J.(1) The petitioner Shri Mohan Lal son of Shri Ishar Dass has come in a petition under-section 13/16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, against the order, dated 24-2-1984 passed by Shri L.D. Gupta, Additional Collector in case No. 253 of 1983 whereby his appeal against the order of Tehsildar passed on 12-10-1983 in case No. 210/CG/82 was rejected. (2) The petitioner claims that an application for correction of khasra girdawari was filed by Shri C.L. Nijhawan who claims himself as attorney of respondent No. I Shri Sohan Lal Bahl. The correction of entries was sought for the year 1978-79 in respect of khasra number 298 situated at Kohlapur Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter on the basis of an order dated 21-5-1981 passed on this application by the Revenue Assistant an entry was made in favor of respondent SohanLal Bahl deleting the name of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter went in appeal before Shri H.A. Arfi, Additional Collector who set aside the order of the Rev...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modoplast (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT187TriDel
1. M/s Modoplast Private Limited (herinafter called the respondents) arc manufacturing Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder out of the raw materials supplied by M/s Praga Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Coimbatore. They arc paid only job work charges. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, II Division, rejected the claim of the respondents, who sought exemption under Notification No. 80/80 regarding this product. The reason given by the Assistant Collector for rejecting the claim is as under : "The definition of 'manufacture' as per Section 2( f) of the Act extends definitely to M/s Praga Industries (P) Ltd., on whose behalf the Urea Formaldehyde Moulding Powder is manufactured by M/s Modoplast (P) Ltd. This stand has been confirmed by the Gujarat High Court in their judgment in the case of Jumnadas v. C.N. Nadia and also in Supreme Court decision in the case of Sheo Agencies and in Bombay High Court decision in the case of Shri Bajrla Gopi Lal v. Bal Kundari. The above decisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT766TriDel
1. On the appellants, M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co., submitting a claim for rebate in terms of Notification No. 257/76-C.E., dated 30-9-1976 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gorakhpur under order dated 23-11-1977 directed that the appellants were entitled for rebate in a sum of Rs. 9,41,707.67 in respect of excess production of sugar by them during the months of October 1976 to September 1977 and that the appellants are allowed to credit the said sum as basic duty in their Personal Ledger Account. Subsequently under letter dated 15-1-1981 (though the Paper Book shows the date to be 15-11-1981 the correct date appears to be 15-1-1981 as seen from the Assistant Collector's subsequent order as also a subsequent letter dated 17-1-1981 to be referred hereafter) the appellants were directed to redeposit, out of the abovesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 20,104/-, on the ground that out of the excess production a quantity of 1600 quintals had been exported under bond without payment of duty o...
Tag this Judgment!Moosa Haji Patrawala and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT485TriDel
1. These two appeals, originally Revision Applications to Government of India against order dated 6-6-1979 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Bombay, primarily related to excisability of what the appellants describe as outer wrapper or outer casing of an Airconditioner and which the Department claims to be a cabinet for Airconditioners. The proceedings against the appellant are the outcome of inspection dated 10-9-1976 made by the Excise authorities in the factory premises of appellant M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala. During investigation Shri Usman Ghani Moosa Patrawala, Managing Partner of appellant M/s. Moosa Haji Patrawala, inter alia, stated that in their classification list dated 7-7-1972 which was approved by the Supdt.Central Excise on 17-8-1972 this appellant had declared the outer wrappers (outer casings) as non-excisable. It was also given out that these were supplied to M/s. Voltas Ltd. and M/s. National Airco Pvt.Ltd. Statements of employees of the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Exports and anr. Vs. Apparels Export Promotion Council
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]60CompCas353(Delhi)
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The plaintiff Mis. Maharaja Exports through its sole proprietor M/s. Sushma Gulati has claimed the following reliefs in her .suit for declaration : -.(A) decree for declaration declaring that the impugned notice dated 4-4-1984 issued by the defendant M/s. Apparels Export Promotion Council regarding the holding of the 4th Annual General Meeting of the defendant on 14-5-1984 is illegal, invalid, and inoperative and that no Annual General Meeting can be held. in pursuance thereof (B) declaring that all the 27 members of the existing Executive Committee are not entitled to hold the respective offices in view. of the Judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. S. Chadha referred .to above; (C) declaring that the 18 members of the Executive Committee hayed retired by rotation and are not entitled to continue in office as members of the Executive Committee; (D) declaring that the 9 members of the Executive Council whose names are mentioned in the impugned notice have automatically c...
Tag this Judgment!J.R. Anand Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(8)DRJ361; 1985LabIC820
D.K. Kapur, J.(1) There are two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 104/81 and 79/81) against the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No. 1269 of 1980, whereby a writ of quo warranto was granted holding that Shri J. R. Anand, appellant in L.P.A. No. 104/81, was not validly appointed in an ad-hoc capacity as Deputy General Manager of the Delhi Transport Corporation. The said Writ Petition was filed by a Registered Trade Union and one of the disadvantages we have faced in dealing with these two appeals is that the original petitioners have chosen to remain absent in the hearing. The result is that the only respondent present is the appellant in the other appeal. In other words, both the parties before us are in favor of the appeal being allowed. (2) The Writ Petition was concerned with the appointment of Shri J.R. Anand, who had previously been removed from service after an inquiry. Concerning this removal, he had instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 39 of 1979. There after, a representation was made ...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Breweries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(20)ELT420TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of 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 Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, by his impugned order dated 29-1-1979 dismissed the appeal before him as time-barred under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The order states that the Assistant Collector's order dated 18-8-1978, appealed against, was received by the appellants on 22-8-1978. The appeal against the said order was received in the Appellate Collector's office on 22-11-1978. The Appellate Collector concluded that the appeal was received after the expiry of the statutory limitation of three months.3. Before us Shri S.P. Bhatnagar, learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1968 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Y.S. Bawa, Supdt. Customs and Central Excise Vs. Siri Niwas Jain, New ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(21)ELT382(Del)
1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition, which is directed against order dated 18th December, 1982 of an Additional Sessions Judge, succinctly are that way back on the night between 13/14th April, 1971 a raid was conducted on premises No. 4698, Gali Umrao Singh, Pahari Dhiraj, by officials of the Customs Department pursuant to some specific secret information. Shri Phool Chand Jain, father of the respondent - Srinivas Jain was present at the house. There was a small room inside a bigger room which was found locked from outsider. The father of the respondent was asked to open the lock but he told the Customs officials that the said room was in possession of a person who was known to his son Srinivas i.e. the respondent. Eventually the lock of the room was broken open and the father of the respondent when told to cooperate with the Customs officials offered to bring out the incriminating goods contained in two steel trunks and one cardboard, etc. Accordingly, he went inside th...
Tag this Judgment!