Delhi Court September 1985 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1985 Page 1 of about 65 results (0.012 seconds)Swastik Packaging Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2446Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions arising for decision in this Appeal to the Tribunal are whether printing on duty-paid aluminium foils clone by the appellants on job work basis again attracts levy of Central Excise duty and, if not, whether : (i) the appellant is the manufacturer in respect of such printed foils; (ii) if so, whether the appellant is eligible for concession of proforma credit procedure under Rule 56A without having followed the procedure prescribed under the rules ; (iii) is eligible for benefit to exemption under Notification No. 71/72-CE, dated 17-3-72 as in force at the relevant time ; (iv) is eligible to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 155/72 dated 15-6-72 duty being collectable only on quantity in excess of 5 MT; (v) the special excise duty should have been calculated at the rate of 5% and not at the rate of 10%; and (vi) whether the imposition of penalty and redemption fine in respect of confiscated goods and confiscation of land, building, plant, machinery and mater...
Tag this Judgment!Special Steels Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2588Tri(Delhi)
1. This order-in-appeal No. A-721/BI-150/ 83 dated 31.3.1983 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay is the subject of an appeal which was heard by this Tribunal on 11.9.1985. Much arguments were presented on behalf of the two sides. We notice that the Collector (Appeals) in para 5 of his order held that in terms of rule 10 read with Rule 173PP(10) of the CE Rules as in force at the time duty demanded for the period prior to 1.7.1977 was not sustainable and was hit by the time limit. He supported the demand for the period after 1.7.1977.2. Rule 173PP(10) required that the duty on item 68 goods would be assessed at the close of the accounting year followed by the assessee on the basis of their return submitted by him in Sub-rule (9) and that the officer, after making such checks as he deems fit, may make debit or credit entries in the account current of any duty that has fallen short or is in excess of the amount payable. It further provides that the provisions of rule 10 and 11 wou...
Tag this Judgment!Kwality Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC438Tri(Delhi)
1. This was a Revision Application originally filed before the Central Government, which, on transfer to this Tribunal, was treated as an appeal.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 7-12-1976 Central Excise Officers of Range-III, Ludhiana visited the factory of the appellants and found that they were manufacturitg "Axle Studs" without obtaining Central Excise Licence in contravention of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Officers seized 59-1/2 gross axle studs valued at Rs. 3,411/- found in the factory. A notice was issued to the appellants on 9-2-1977 to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ludhiana as to why penalty should not be imposed on them and why Centra] Excise duty should not be charged on the seized goods under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules for contravention of Rule 174 ibid. Following the guidelines laid down in the Instruction No. 64/CE/77 (I-Nut & Bolts) dated 2-3-1977 issued by the Collec-torate of Central Excise, C...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Cartland Exporters
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC623Tri(Delhi)
1. The present appeal filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, under the directions of the Collector of Customs, Madras, is against the Order-in-appeal No. C3/1014/84, dated 6-11-1984 of the Collector (Appeals), in which he has reversed the Order-in-original No.S. Misc. 137/84ACC, dated 21-5-1984 of the Assistant Collector of Customs. The question is whether the cloves imported by the respondents from Sri Lanka were assessable to a basic Customs duty of Rs. 20/- per kilogram less 7 1/2% ad valorem, as claimed by the respondents or of Rs. 18.50 per kilogram as claimed by the Department. The controversy turns on the interpretation to be given to the words "Rs. 20/- per kilogram less 7 1/2%" occurring in notification No. 431-Cus., dated l-l1-1976, as amended.2. The Assistant Collector's order is neither a proper speaking order nor an intelligible one, but apparently rejects the contention of the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) has, however, passed a very detailed order i...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Malwa Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2487Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondents were found entitled for the exemption from duty in terms of notification No.146/74-Central Excises dated 12-10-1974 (commonly known as incentive rebate for higher production of sugar during the period from December, 1974 to September, 1975). The rebate was sanctioned to them by the department and credited into their Personal Ledger Account in August, 1976. Some 2 years and 4 months later, the department felt that some excess payment had been made to the respondents inasmuch as rebate had been paid to them even for the sugar exported without payment of any duty, out of the excess produced sugar. Accordingly, a show cause notice asking the respondents to pay back the excess rebate of Rs. 25,472.48 was issued on 21-12-1978. The Collector (Appeals) has set aside this demand. The department is now in appeal before us to have the demand restored.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.We agree with th...
Tag this Judgment!Shriram Jute Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)(5)LC2538Tri(Delhi)
1. The point of dispute that falls for decision in this case relates to tariff classification and the rate of central excise duty applicable to laminated jute bags. The lower authorities have held that laminated jute bags fell under the residuary item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants have urged that these goods be clas ified under item 22A relating to jute manufactures. The dispute relates to the period from 1-3-1975 to 5-6-1979. With effect from 6-6-1979, laminated jute bags falling under item No. 68 of the Tariff became fully exempt from duty under notification No. 204/79-CE, dated 6-6-1979.2. The subject laminated jute bags were manufactured out of jute fabrics laminated with paper, the two being bonded together with the help of bitumen. In the laminated condition, the jute content predominated. In holding that the laminated jute bags fell under item No. 68 of the Tariff, the lower authorities have relied on the Calcutta High Court judgments reported at A.I.R. 19...
Tag this Judgment!Motiwala and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC210Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a Revision Application originally filed before the Central Government, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and treated as an appeal.2. The Deputy Collector (Gold), Central Excise, New Delhi held the appellants guilty of contravention of Section 34 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 inasmuch as they delivered primary gold in the shape of standard bar and gold ornaments to Shri Kanwar Sain, who was neither a licensed dealer nor a refiner nor a certified goldsmith and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- on them under Section 74 of the Act. By the impugned order, the Appellate Collector reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000/-, against which the present appeal has been filed. The Appellate Collector held the charge against the appellants as established because of the following reasons: (i) There are vouchers signed by Kanwar Sain as on behalf of Motiwala, (iii) The appellant's version that they were not aware that Shri Sain was acting as an agent on his own, does not sound ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramesh Chander Thukral Vs. Sadershan Dev Sharma
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1986(10)DRJ66
Sultan Singh, J. (1) The respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profits against the petitioner which was decreed by the trial court. The petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi The petitioner in March, 1985 made an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The petitioner alleges that the main contention between the parties is whether he is a tenant in the property or licensee. There is also dispute regarding the exclusive possession of the property. The petitioner submits that he had given to his counsel conducting the case in the trial court various documents referred to in his application, and on inspection of the file the petitioner came to know that the documents were on record but the same have not been exhibited. He further submits that the trial court has not taken into consideration the documents already on record in spite of due diligence on the ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Thomas and ors. Vs. State and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi210
G.R. Luthra, J. (1) By means of this judgment, five petitions [Crl. Misc. (Main) 65/76, Crl. Misc. (Main) 210/77, Crl. Misc. (Main) 217177, Crl. Misc. (Main) 255177 .and Crl. Misc. (Main) 257177] are being decided. They arise out of the same criminal proceedings pending in the court of' a Metropolitan Magistrate. (2) The questions for determination are as under (A)Is the cognizance of the criminal proceedings by the learned Magistrate against all or any of the accused barred by limitation as provided by section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) ? (B)Can criminal 'liability be vicariously fastened on the directors of the company or partners of the firm and if so, under what circumstances (3) For deciding the aforesaid questions it is necessary to know the version of the prosecution which is as under. Shri S. B. Lodha, Junior Research Assistant of the Forward Markets Commission, Bombay constituted under the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (h...
Tag this Judgment!South India Alloy Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(6)LC256Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. South India Alloy Industries, 73, Puthur Ittery Road, Nethimedu, Salem-636003 (Tamil Nadu) had filed a Revision Application under erstwhile Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Special Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue being aggrieved from order in Review No. 30/1981 file No. 199/49/78/CXV(A) dated 16-9-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi. After coming into existence of the Tribunal the said Revision Application stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee had been manufacturing and clearing Rock Phosphate without taking Central Excise licence and without paying Central Excise duty from 11-9-1975. A sample of the said Rock Phosphate was drawn on 9-11-1976 by the Central Excise Officers and was tested to check whether it was liable to duty as "Fertilizers, All Sor...
Tag this Judgment!