Delhi Court April 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 71 results (0.022 seconds)Collector of Customs Vs. Godrej Soap Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(21)ELT529TriDel
1. The Department has challenged the Order-in-Appeal No. S/49-608/84 CL dated 14-6-84 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, by filing appeal before this Tribunal under section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. That appeal was received in the Registry of the Tribunal on 14th December, 1984. The appeal having been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of three months, the Department has filed this application for condonation of delay. The reasons given for condonation of delay are as under : "(1) The item is classifiable under heading 15 or 20 of the CTA depending upon the purity of the same. To verify it, a detailed study was required and it took a time to come to the conclusion that the order-in-appeal does not appear to be correct. (2) The file was thereafter submitted to Collector for his order on 15-11-84 and the sanction was accorded by the Collector on 17-11-84. The purity of the item imported is a deciding factor for classification of the item and if...
Tag this Judgment!Bliss Pack Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2079Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Bliss Pack (hereinafter called the 'appellants') under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the Order-in-Original No. 2 of 1983, dated 2-6-1983 issued on 11-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, whereby the appellants were required to pay excise duty of Rs. 1,17,281. 25+Rs. 975.84 and also to pay penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. An order confiscating the land, building, machinery etc. used in connection with the manufacture of excisable goods involved in the case was also passed but an option was given to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturers of corrugated boxes falling under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. For the manufacture of corrugated boxes, the appellants used to supply kraft paper to M/s. Bliss Enterprises, Bombay and...
Tag this Judgment!Bongajgaon Refinery and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(22)ELT189TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 297/ASM/83, dated 31-12-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, by which the Collector confirmed the Order-in-Original No. I D-IV/DB/5/Demand/RPC/83, dated 19-5-1983 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Dhubri, Assam. The Assistant Collector, by his Order, demanded a sum of Rs. 25,49,477.70 as duty from M/s Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") on 4500 metric tonnes of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) produced and removed by the appellants without payment of duty within the factory premises as feed stock for the production of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC)., 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the refining of crude petroleum resulting in the manufacture of petroleum products. They also manufacture petrochemicals. It appears that they were engaged in the production, inter alia, of RPC in their delayed Coke...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orissa Weavers Cooperative
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2031Tri(Delhi)
1. When the case was called, the Department's Representative submitted that there was a delay of about one month in filing their appeal. He prayed that this delay be condoned. The respondents had no objection to the delay being condoned. We condoned the delay on the oral application of the Department's Representative. The hearing of the case was then proceeded with.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Item 18A of the Central Excise Tariff read as under :- (2) Cotton yarn, twist or thread, all sorts, whether sized or unsized, in all forms including skeins, hanks, cops, cones, bobbins, pirns, spools, reels, cheeses, balls or on warp beams shall be deemed to be included under this Item. (3) Explanation I, II and III under sub-item III of Item No. 18 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to this Item as they apply in relation to that Item." Explanation II under sub-item III of Item No. 18, referred to in Explanation (3) above, read as under :- "Explanation II.-For multiple fo...
Tag this Judgment!Nagarjuna Steels Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1968Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants M/s. Nagarjuna Steels Limited, applied for refund of Rs. 3,10,603.47 and Rs. 16,465.29 paid as duty during the period June 1977 to May 1978 and 29-5-1978 to 31-5-1978 respectively. With reference thereto a show cause notice was issued to them on 15-6-1978 calling upon them to explain why the refund should not be restricted to the period of six months before the date of their application for refund. The appellants pleaded That since their refund was on the basis of the incentive relief under Notification No. 198/76, dated 16-7-1978 they were entitled to relief in full and in any event the amendment to Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules restricting the period to six months came into effect on 6-8-1977 only but that as the claim related to anterior period also they were entitled to full relief. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 12-9-1978 rejected the contentions of the appellants 'and ordered that the relief be restricted to the period of six months prior t...
Tag this Judgment!Mermaid Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1834Tri(Delhi)
1.The appellants, M/s. Mermaid Marine Products (P) Ltd. admittedly manufacture fish meal and fish oil in their factory. Under Notice dated 11-5-1083 they were called Upon to show cause why action should not be taken against them for carrying on the said activity of manufacture of fish oil without taking out a Central Excise licence therefor and without observing due formalities in connection therewith. They replied contending that fish meal as well as fish oil were exempted and that though they had applied for licence the same had been returned with audit and that they had not, therefore, committed any contravention.They further claimed that the demand was time-barred.2. Under order dated 8-6-1984 the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Cochin held the charges established and imposed penalties [Rs. 1,000/' under Rule 9(2), Rs. 500/- under Rule 52A, Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 222 and Rs. 5,000/-under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules] and also demanded payment of duty on the cleara...
Tag this Judgment!Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC(1974)Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions that arise for determination in this Revision Application to the Government of India transferred to and heard by the Tribunal pursuant to S. 35P of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (the Act, for short) are :- (i) whether the cost of jute bags used for packing cement should be included in the assessable value of cement in terms of S. 4(4) (d) of the Act or excluded on the ground that these are of a durable nature and are returnable by the buyer to the Assessee and (ii) if the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11044-45 of 1980 is res judicata in these proceedings 2. The hearing of this Appeal was adjourned on a number of occasions to await the judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue of durable and returnable packing. Since, however, in our view, the second of the aforesaid questions is crucial and conclusive, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we proceeded to decide this Appeal, without touching the first question and t...
Tag this Judgment!Kundan Lal and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1986]157ITR651(Delhi)
D.K. Kapur, J.1. The question of law referred to us for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 is as follows : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the inclusion of the cost of materials supplied by the M. E. S. authorities to the assessed-firm in the assessed's total receipts and applying a net rate of profit at 10% on the total receipts for the purposes of computing the assessed's income for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 ?' 2. Learned counsel for the assessed stated that the question of law had to be answered in favor of the assessed because the point was now covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. CIT : [1978]115ITR524(SC) . He pointed out that the Tribunal had followed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported as Brij Bhushan Lal v. CIT , which was now overruled by the Supreme Court's judgment. We have examined the two judgments. We find that the...
Tag this Judgment!international Air Transport Association Vs. Aziz Fatima HasnaIn and an ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1985Delhi381; 28(1985)DLT208
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1982 of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code. (2) Briefly these are the facts. Smt. Aziz Fatima Hasnain, plaintiff- respondent No. 1 filed a suit for Rs. 50,000/. as damages against Pakistan International Airlines (defendant No. 1- Respondent No. 2) and Inter- national Air Transport Authority Canada, (petitioner-defendant No 2) She has alleged that she was scheduled to travel on 29th August, 1980 by Pakistan International Airlines flight from New Delhi to Karachi and Karachi to Jeddah by Flight No. Pk 733, that she had a valid ticket, which was handed over to her by the Pakistan International Airlines office (defendant No. 1) at New Delhi, that her ticket was okayed, that she reached the air port on 29th August, 1980 in time and after necessary formalit...
Tag this Judgment!Pal Ram Pal Vs. Santosh Rampal
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 28(1985)DLT102; 1985(9)DRJ94
S.B. Wad, J.(1) These appeals are filed by the husband against the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, refusing decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and on the ground of desertion. The husband filed a petition on the ground of cruelty first and thereafter a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion was filed. The two petitions were consolidated and disposed of by a common order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 27-8-1983. The marriage between the parties took place on 20-11-1975. In October, 1976 a son was born. It is alleged that on 22-8-1977 the wife left the matrimonial home. The petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was filed on 8-8-1978. On 21-11-1979 a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife was filed. (2) Both husband and wife were working as Clerks in different Government departments at Delhi at the time of their marriage. In 1977 the husband got himself transferred to Ferozpur. Practically for t...
Tag this Judgment!