Delhi Court July 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 6 of about 62 results (0.044 seconds)Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC313Tri(Delhi)
1. Briefly staled the facts of the case are that Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter called the appellants) manufacture patent or proprietary medicine falling under item 14E of the CET. They also manufacture other products including (1) Dant Manjan, (2) Surma and (3) Kajal.Prior to 1975, the appellants classified Dant Manjans, Surmas and Kajals manufactured by them under item 7 of the classification list meant for showing "other goods manufactured". With effect from 1-3-1978 when a residuary item 68 was introduced in the Central Excise Tariff, these three products were classi- Pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified were exempted from payment of excise duty. The appellants treated these products, namely, Dant Manjan, Surma and Kajal as Ayurvedic drugs/medicines and did not pay any excise duty with effect from 1-3-1978 by taking benefit of Notification No. 62/78 C.E., dated 1-3-1978.2. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range V, Nagpur i...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Orient Paper Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2513Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 6/OR/84 dated 24-1-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by which he set aside the Assistant Collector (Rourkela)'s Order C. No.V (17) 3-18/RKL-83/9918 dated 21-11-1983. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Orient Paper Mills, Brajraj Nagar (the Respondents in the present proceedings) are manufacturers of various types of paper and paper board. They also manufacture wrapping paper for packing or wrapping of other varieties of paper. Consequent on the amendment of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') by Central Excise Notification No. 187/83, dated 9-7-1983, the Respondents claimed that they were not required to pay duty on wrapping paper utilised for packing other varieties of paper. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela. By his Order dated 21-11-1983, the Assistant Collector informed the 'Respo...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Premier Oxygen and Acetylene Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC472Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Indore has preferred this appeal arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 615-CE/IND/84, dated 19-10-1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. The Respondents in this case, M/s. Premier Oxygen and Acetylene Co.Pvt. LTD., Gwalior manufacture oxygen and acetylene gas falling under T.I. 14H of CET. The gas is supplied by them to their customers in durable cylinders. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gwalior had demanded duty on the retention/holding charges of gas cylinders which was being collected by the Respondents from their customers. The total duty amount was Rs. 1,256.72 for the period 1-10-1980 to 31-3-1981. Aggrieved by this, the Respondents preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who in his order dated 19-10-1984 observed that the oxygen gas was supplied by the Respondents in durable and returnable containers and held that if the Respondents were charging only for the retention/hold...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Simco Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC343Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents M/s. Simco Industries, Bhavnagar are manufacturers of Brass Lamp Holders. Under directions of the Superintendent they obtained Central Excise licence for the manufacture of the subject goods under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. After drawal of samples, the Superintendent informed them that the Brass Lamp Holders manufactured by them would be classifiable under Tariff Item 61 of the Central Excise Tariff and they should obtain licence accordingly. The respondents objected to the same. The Assistant Collector went into the matter and under order dated 19-9-1979 held as follows :- "I hereby order that the Lamp Holders manufactured by M/s. Simco Industries, Bhavnagar are classifiable under Tariff Item No. 61 and the jurisdictional Superintendent, Central Excise would complete rest of the formalities. The above order is restricted to the matter of classification of the product manufactured by M/s. Simco Industries, Bhavnagar and has no bearing on other issu...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturi and Sons Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1902Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the appellants imported certain spare parts. One of the items imported, called Roll Neck for Blanket Cylinder was, on landing, found damaged by rust. The appellants made a note of the damage in the Bill of Entry and requested the Customs authorities to endorse the same in their examination report.They' claimed that an endorsement as to the damage had been made by the Customs officer but the duty had still been collected from them on the full value of the spare parts. They applied for abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962. Their claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the examination report was not clear on the point and that no survey had been conducted. The Appellate Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the appellants had failed to follow the procedure laid down under Section 22. The appellants, thereupon, filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Singh Vs. Sultan Khan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ69; 1985RLR509
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The appellant was a lawful sub-tenant in respect of premises House No. 2130, Ward No. Vii, Katra Gokul Shah, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The aforesaid premises, prior to 1968, where owned by Shri R.N. Kaul and two of his brothers. At that time Dr. Zutshi was the tenant. The appellant herein was a sub-tenant of Dr. Zutshi. According to the concurrent findings of the Courts below lawful sub-tenancy had been created in favor of the appellant by Dr. Zutshi, with the consent of the then landlord, in February. 1952. (2) In 1968 Sultan Khan) the decree holder bought the prelists in question. He filed an application for eviction of Dr. Zutshi and one Smt. Sushila Devi. The appellant was also imp leaded as one of respondents. The application was filed by the respondent-landlord for seeking eviction On the grounds specified in Section 14(1)(a), (b), (d) and (h). It is not disputed that Dr. Zutshi deposited the rent in Court and thereforee, the claim for eviction under Section 14(1)...
Tag this Judgment!Maya Seth and ors. Vs. Balram and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 2(1985)ACC405
S.B. Wad, J.1. FAO 102/73 is filed by the heirs of the deceased ChuniLal Seth for enhancement of compensation. F.A.O. 138/73 is filed by the Union of India challenging the award itself. The award was rendered by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Delhi on February 22, 1973. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,738/- as compensation. The claims ants have claimed Rs. 99,000/- as compensation.2. The accident took place on July 31, 1966 at 5.00 PM near Khyber Pass Market, Alipur Road, Delhi. Chuni Lal Seth was going from Timarpur side to Kashmere Gate on his Scooter No. DLW 1516. His son Prem Chand was sitting on the pillion. Vehicle No. DLJ 3047, a Police Van, coming from the opposite direction suddenly took a right turn and dashed against the scooter. Chuni Lal was seriously injured and was taken to the Irwin Hospital for treatment. He died of injuries on August 8, 1966. The Union of India denied their liability. They claimedthat the scooter was being driven recklessly on the wrong side of the road...
Tag this Judgment!Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT393TriDel
1. The question involved in all these three appeals is the same and the facts and question of law being one and common, so we are disposing of all these appeals by this common order.2. Briefly stated the facts involved in all these appeals are that M/s Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as Appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel. Oxygen gas is very essential in the manufacturing process of iron and steel, which gas is supplied to the appellants by M/s Indian Oxygen Ltd., having its factory in Jamshedpur through pipe lines to the appellants' Blast Furnaces, Steel Melting Shops and various mills and other places inside the works where the appellants manufacture iron and steel.3. Notification No. 145/71, dated 26-7-1971 has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempting Excise duty on Oxygen gas if it is used directly in the man...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. R.R. Tea Company and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC1924Tri(Delhi)
1. Order-in-Appeal No. 561 to 566/CE/IND/84 dated 30.9.1984 had been passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. This order related to the appeals preferred by M/s. R.R. Tea Co. as well as M/s. R. OM Tea Co. The Collector, Central Excise, Indore, had filed an appeal against the said order mentioning in column 3 of the appeal that no copy of the order-in-appeal dated 30.9.1984 had been received by the Collector in spite of telegrams. An application for stay had also been filed along with the appeal. Subsequently since the registry had informed the appellant Collector that as the order-in-appeal relates to six different appeals, the appellant Collector will have to file five supplementary appeals. It is thereafter that five supplementary appeals have been filed. In connection with those supplementary appeals applications have been filed for condonation of delay and also mentioning that as separate appeals had been filed in pursuance of the directions of the registry an...
Tag this Judgment!Kutir Diyasalai Udyog (U.S.S.) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC396Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture matches. They were paying duty at the concessional rate under Notification No. 154/75-C.E., dated 3-6-1975 (as amended) from 1-4-1979. They had cleared more than 10 million matches in October 1979. They crossed the 75 million mark in November 1979 and therefore from 1-12-1979 began to pay duty at Rs. 4/50 per gross. On 2-4-1980 a show cause notice was issued to them why they should not be called upon to pay differential duty for the clearances from 1-4-1979 to 30-11-1979. They sent a reply denying liability. After granting a personal hearing in which a defence of time bar was also raised the Assistant Collector under his order dated 17-9-1982 confirmed the demand. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under his order dated 24-9-1984.This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri H.P. Arora, Advocate for the appellants and Smt.Dolly Saxena, Senior Departmental Representative and Shri K.C. Sachar,...
Tag this Judgment!