Delhi Court February 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 7 of about 76 results (0.020 seconds)Collector of Central Excise Vs. Steelage Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1634Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents manufacture steel, furniture, safes, etc. The point of dispute before us is whether the Firesafe Record Cabinet manufactured by them should be classified as an article of steel furniture under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff or as a safe under Item 48 thereof.2. The fact of the case in brief are that steel furniture and safes were liable to the same rate of central excise duty, though under two different tariff headings, till 28-2-1979. The respondents had submitted classification lists classifying their Firesafe Record Cabinet under Item 48 as a safe which was approved by the Department.The Budget of 1979 increased the duty leviable on safes to 35% ad valorem while the rate on steel furniture was fixed at 25% ad valorem.Thereafter, in August, 1979, the respondents filed a fresh classification list requesting for classification of their Firesafe Record Cabinet under Item 40 as steel furniture. The Assistant Collector, who adjudicated upon the matter, upheld the...
Tag this Judgment!E.i.D Parry (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT494TriDel
1.The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of 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 appeal was earlier listed for hearing on 12-11-1984. On that day the Appeal was dismissed by the Bench for default of appearance by the appellants. On 7-12-1984, after hearing the Counsel for the appellants and the Senior Departmental Representative for the Respondent, the Bench set aside the earlier order and restored the appeal to file.3. The appeal was heard on 7-2-1985. Shri K. Narasimhan, Advocate, represented the appellants and Smt. Vijay Zutshi, SDR, the Respondent.4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of fertilizer from raw naphtha through the ammonia route. For this purpose, they secured raw naphtha under the procedure pre...
Tag this Judgment!Harish Khera Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, Delhi Admini ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(28)ELT212(Del)
Prakash Narain, C.J.1. The petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order made by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, with a view to prevent him from abetting smuggling of goods namely wrist watches and integrated circuits. He challenges his detention and continued detention on diverse grounds. In the view we are going to take that it is sufficient to mention only one of those grounds. This ground is that the detention becomes void and vitiated, inter alia, on account of non-compliance with the mandator provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. 2. The relevant facts, for the above contention are these. The Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, agreeing with the proposal to preventively detail the petitioner under the aforesaid Act passed an order to the effect that he be so detained, on November 23, 1984. T...
Tag this Judgment!Suraj Prakash Vs. the Management of Rajpal Knitwears and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1985(9)DRJ108; [1985(50)FLR516]; 1985LabIC549
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 8th December, 1971 in Industrial Dispute No. 64 of 1971. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court while accepting the contention of the petitioner that the termination of the services of the petitioner were illegal and void refused to grant him reinstatement and awarded compensation of Rs. 550.00 in lieu of the termination. (2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed by respondent no. I to work on the Flat Machine in the year 1968. The salary last drawn by the petitioner was Rs. 175.00 per month at the time of the termination of his services. The petitioner's services were terminated vide respondent's letter dated 4th March, 1971 on the ground that respondent no. I had closed down the working of the Flat Machine and thus the services of the petitioner were no longer required. The case o...
Tag this Judgment!Chattar Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi655
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This petition was admitted by J. D. Jain J. on 11th January, 1985, to consider the question 'Whether in view of section 75, Punjab Excise Act. cognizance could be taken in this case on the basis of police report'.(2) It was set down for hearing on 4th February, 1985. when neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner himself appeared. The case was adjourned to today. Apain. there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. thereforee, I proceed to judgment with the assistance of Mr. Bharti An and, counsel for the State.(3) Section 75 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, reads as follows :- '75(1)No Magistrate shall take cognizance of an offence, punishable.- (A)under section 61 or section 66, except on his own knowledge or suspicion or on the complaint or report of an excise officer, or (B)under section 62, section 63, section 64, section 65, section 68 or section 70, except on the complaint or report of th...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(0)LC790Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under the provisions of 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, briefly stated, are that M/s. Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., Udvada, District Bulsar (Gujarat) (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents) are manufacturers of paper. Paper is excisable under item No. 17 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as CET). The dispute in the present matter relates to a variety of paper known as maplitho paper of grammage ranping from 140 grammes per sq. metre (GSM) to 179 GSM. Prior to 16 3.1976, the Respondents were clearing such paper as pulp-board falling under sub-item (3) of item No. 17 CET. On 16.3.1976, item No, 17 of the CET underwent certain legislative changes. From 16.3.1976 o...
Tag this Judgment!Gita Masand Vs. NaraIn Dass
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT374
D.R. Khanna, J.(1) This appeal has been moved by Gita Masand against a decree of divorce granted by Shri G.S. Dhaka, Additional District Judge Delhi on 7-2-1984 in a petition for divorce brought by her husband Narain Dass Masand. Of the two grounds alleged on which divorce was claimed,the one relating to desertion was not proved. No attempt to seek reversal of that finding in this appeal by Narain Dass has been made. Divorce instead has been granted on the ground of cruelty, and the basis of the same has been the charge of adultery which Gita Masand leveled against Narain Dass and further that she had at one time taken sleeping pills in excess. It maybe relevant here to mention that the allegation of adultery was not initially made the subject matter of the divorce petition but was introduced by way of amendment as a result of the written statement which Gita Masand had filed and in which she had mentioned that Narain Dass bad been ill-treating her because he had fallen in love with an...
Tag this Judgment!Viran Devi Vs. T.N. Sachdeva and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 27(1985)DLT415; 1985(8)DRJ358; 1985RLR230
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. (1) I have heard Mr. Makhija on behalf of the heirs of the respondent T.N. Sachdeva, who died in September, 1983. He was a tenant of Smt, Viran Devi, the appellant. Counsel submits that. without hearing the heirs of the tenant, the order in this appeal could not be passed in favor of Smt. Viran Devi allowing her to withdraw the rent deposited by Sachdeva in his life time. He has advanced two arguments in support of his contention. (2) In the first place he says that the appeal had become incompetent because the heirs of Sachdeva were not brought on the record in time. In the second place he' submits that after the petition was dismissed, the Additional Controller had become functus officio and had no power left in him to order payment of the rent deposited by Sachdeva to the landlady. (3) In my opinion, both these arguments are devoid of merit. In this case, death of Sachdeva does not affect the right of Smt. Viran Devi, the landlady, to claim that the rent lyi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Travancore Plywood Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT212TriDel
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/". Travancore Plywood Industries Limited (hereinafter called the respondents) obtained a Central Excise Licence L-4/1 Synthetic Resins/77 for the manufacture of Phenol Formaldehyde Synthetic Resins falling under Item No. 15-A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff on 13-7-1977. They filed Classification List No. l/77-78(SR), dated 7-9-1977 in respect of the resins manufactured by them and the said classification list was approved w.e.f. 16-9-1977 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Travancore, classifying the product under Item 15-A(1) C.E.T. and giving the benefit of 25% rebate of duty in terms of Notification No.198/76, dated 16-6-1976 computing the base production as Nil for the purpose of said Notification.2. Later on, the Excise authorities discovered that the respondents had been manufacturing and clearing for their own consumption Synthetic Resins falling under Item 15-A(1) from 1974 onwards without obtaining a Central Excis...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC206Tri(Delhi)
1. The material facts leading to the present proceedings, briefly stated, are that M/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as Sandoz) are engaged in the manufacture of two products, named : The Central Excise authorities classified the 1st product under Item No. 15AA ["Organic surface active agents (other than soap); surface active preparations and washing preparations whether or not containing soap"] of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the C.E.T.). This classification was accepted by Sandoz who started paying duty on the said product. The 2nd product, which is stated to be nothing but a diluted form of the 1st product obtained by adding 55% water to it, was claimed by Sandoz as eligible for duty exemption in terms of Central Excise Notification No.101/66 dated 17-6-1966 on the ground that in its manufacture duty paid organic surface agent was being used. This claim was made in Classification List No. 21/79 date...
Tag this Judgment!