Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 4 of about 62 results (0.021 seconds)Bombay Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2188Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue involved in this appeal, which was originally a revision petition before the Central Government, is as to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 119/75-C.E., dated April 30, 1975 to appellants, in respect to the manufacturing process they carried out on brass rods received from their customers, by making valves and nuts, meant for different parts of LPG cylinders.2. The facts as set out in the appeal, and also as indicated by the Order-in-Appeal, reveal that the appellants received from certain named customers brass rods by way of raw material for the manufacture of forged nuts and valve body forged and machined on job basis during period 1-7-1975 to 31-12-1975. They paid duty on job work charges received by them from their customers, in terms of Notification No.119/75, while the excise authorities took the view subsequently that value of the raw material had also to be included, inasmuch as the appellants manufacture complete equipment for cylinders, out of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Parekh Dye-chem. Industries (P)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC325Tri(Delhi)
1. This batch of 10 appeals involve a common issue for determination and are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. The issue is whether the consignments of Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA, for short) imported by the Respondents were liable to be assessed to additional duty of Customs at 10% ad valorem in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 185/83, dated 2-7-1983 as contended by the appellants, which contention was turned down by the Assistant Collector of Customs, but upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by his impugned orders. "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts Polyvinyl Alcohol, falling under Item No. 15A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and manufactured from Vinyl Acetate Monomer, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon under the said Act at the rate specified in the said First Schedule, as is in excess of ...
Tag this Judgment!Poyila Rubber and Plastics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(23)ELT545TriDel
1. This is a revision petition filed before the Government of India which on transfer to this Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants are a Partnership concern functioning within the jurisdiction of Cochin Collectorate. They are manufacturers of rubber products falling under Tariff Item 16-A (2). Among other items they also manufacture tread rubber, cushion compound, and cushion backed tread rubber. The cushion compound manufactured in the factory was used by the appellants within the factory for the manufacture of cushion backed tread rubber and without payment of duty. Cushion compound manufactured and consumed by the unit would fall under Tariff Item 16-A (2) and the same was not exempted from payment of duty till the issue of Notification No. 208/72-C.E., dated 14-10-1972.3. On 20-9-1974 a show cause notice was issued to the appellants, stating, that duty on cushion compound used for captive consumption within the factory for backing tread rubber was not levied pr...
Tag this Judgment!Jagan Nath Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 29(1986)DLT42
H.C. Goel, J.1. This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentences of three years' RI and a fine of Rs. 500/- and of seven years, RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/- there under respectively passed by the court of Shri K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment and order of sentence, both dated September 13, 1983. Chameli Devi, prosecutrix, was known to Jagan Nath appellant. They both belong to one and the same village in Rajasthan. Chameli Devi is aged about 40 years. She was married about 20 years prior to the occurrence on September 14, 1981 and had five children. Jagan Nath appellant was aged about 53 years and is a married person with grown-up children. The prosecution case is hat the husband of Chameli Devi was a railway employee and was posed at Rampur in Uttar Pradesh. On September 14, 1981 Chameli Devi got down at the Delhi Main Railway Station at about 9.00 p.m. on her way from Jaipur to Rampur. She was to chang...
Tag this Judgment!Punjab Breweries Ltd. and Mohan Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC350Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal (1) was initially filed as a revision application before the Central Government and the appeal (2) was filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. Under Section 35-P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, these have come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if they were appeals filed before it.2. There are several contentions raised before us but the crucial issue falling for determination in both the cases is whether the gas which the appellants call 'fermentation gas' and contains about 99% of carbon dioxide (CO2) falls for classification under item No. 14-H of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CET, for short).The appellants' contention is that the gas in question is not compressed carbon dioxide within the meaning of item 14-H CET, whereas the contention of the Department is that it is.3. We are concerned in both the appeals with item No. 14-H CET as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finan...
Tag this Judgment!Jhaboolal Kasera Rolling Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(24)ELT128TriDel
1. This application under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act is by the appellant in Appeal No. E-1 887/83-NRB for making a reference, to the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, of various questions of law as enumerated in the petition.2. The appeal arose out of an order dated 3-5-1983 of the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. Under the said order he had dismissed the appeal against the order dated 7-5-1981 of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Mirzapur. The ground for dismissal was that the appeal had not been preferred within the time prescribed therefore in the Act. Under order dated 17-4-1984 this Tribunal had confirmed the order of the Collector (Appeals) upholding his finding that the appeal to him i.e., Collector (Appeals), had not been preferred within time prescribed therefore. This was on the basis that while the order of the Assistant Collector had been received by the appellant on 12-5-1981, the appeal against the same had been received in th...
Tag this Judgment!Calico Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2068Tri(Delhi)
1. The point of dispute in this case is whether spindle tapes of width 15 cms. or less were liable to central excise duty in terms of the proviso to Exemption Notification No. 226/77-C.E., dated 15-7-1977.Appellants are not present at the time of hearing today. By their letter dated 18-6-1985 they have requested that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence. They have sent certain written submissions which we have considered. We have also heard learned Representative of the Department. His prayer is that the matter may be remanded to the lower authority to deal with the appellants' new contention that duty demanded from them was fabric duty and not yarn duty. In response to our query, he confirmed that according to the record the other two exemption Notification No. 70/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969, No. 91/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969 were in force during the material period.2. We have carefully considered the matter. The exemption Notification No. 70/69-C.E. and 91/69-C.E., both dat...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Foam Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT350TriDel
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 30/T.I.15-A/84, dated 27/28-12-1984, passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Indore.Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant, appears on behalf of the appellants and Shrimati V. Zutshi, SDR, on behalf of the Respondent.2. Appellants have stated that on 12th October, 1982, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bhopal, in which it was alleged that during the period from 15th November, 1979 to 27th July, 1981, the appellants have availed of proforma credit amounting to Rs. 77,881.16 of the countervailing duty paid on goods imported by them, which were classifiable under Item No.68, which was not admissible, and they had thus removed finished excisable goods without payment of equivalent amount of duty in contravention of various Central Excise provisions. Similarly, they also availed of proforma credit in respect of countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 12,816.64 on a consignment of Desmoph...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Radio House Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1989(42)ELT532(Del)
Charanjit Talwar, J. 1. The petitioner herein, M/s. Chandra Radio House, a partnership firm carrying on business at Agra has challenged the decision of the Union of India passed on 6th December, 1971, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for refund of countervailing duty on the ground that the said claim was time-barred. 2. To appreciate the contention urged by Mr. Daljit Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner I may notice a few facts. The petitioner imported four cartons of radio parts used in the manufacturer of electronic instruments from Japan vide Bill of entry bearing No. 1652/112 dated 28th March, 1969. On the said imported goods apart from the prescribed import duty the petitioner was made to pay an additional countervailing duty amounting to Rs. 2509.50. The petitioner's case was that the levy of countervailing duty was without jurisdiction as it was not livable under the Customs Act, 1962. The duty was paid on 14th April, 1969. The petitioner filed an application for refun...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Rafi Vs. Union of India
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995IIIAD(Delhi)429; 1995(2)ARBLR217(Delhi); 59(1995)DLT413
S.K. Mahajan, J.(1) Under the agreement for construction of By-pass to N.H.I in the reach Burari Road to Jahangirpuri,S.H. balance earth work from C.H. 3500 to 4500 M, awarded to the petitioner, certain disputes had arisen between the parties and they in terms of the agreement were referred for arbitration to Shri Ch. Prabhakar Rao, the Arbitrator, respondent No. 2. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner had preferred 13 claims claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,14,15,379.28 paise from the respondent No. 1 allegedly due to him under the contract. Reply to the statement of claim was filed by the respondent and respondent had also preferred certain counter claims. After hearing the parties, the Arbitrator made and published his award on 29.2.1984. By way of the said award, the Arbitrator rejected all the claims of the petitioner except claim No. 7. Counter claims of the respondent were also disallowed. Under claim No. 7, the Arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs. 14,100.94 paise in favor of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!