Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 1 of about 90 results (0.012 seconds)Motiram Tola Ram and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC8
1. The question for decision in all these appeals, raising common issue and disposed of by this common order, is whether imported High Density Polythelene Moulding Powder (hereinafter called HDPE") is eligible to concession in respect of additional duty under exemption Notification 302/79-CE, dated 1-2-1979 as amended by Notification 184/80-CE, dated 29-11-1980.2. It may be stated that earlier the Tribunal by Order Nos. 222 to 226/84-C, dated March 5, 1985 on identical facts held that benefit to the notification was not available in respect of imported HDPE Moulding Powder. The reason which weighed with the Tribunal in taking the decision was that the importers had failed to show and prove that raw naphtha used for the manufacture of imported HDPE had already paid the appropriate amount of excise duty leviable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and had thus not fulfilled one of the conditions of the notification.3. At the hearing of the appeals there was no dispute between...
Tag this Judgment!Agromore Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC194
1. Agromore Limited, Mysore Road, Bangalore has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. 275/82B dated 10-11-1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant having a Central Excise Licence L4 No. 3/78 are manufacturers of (i) Ethrel plant growth regulators, (ii) Ethrel latex stimulant, (iii) Fruitone; and (iv) Trans-plantone; and had cleared the same without payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,12,968.74 during the period from 1.3.1978 to 30.4.1980 and Rs. 34,201.42 during the period from 1.5.1980 to 31.7.1981 respectively. Two show cause notices dated 23.6.1981 and 25.9.1981 were issued to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bangalore asking them to show cause to Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore as to why the Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,12,968.74 and Rs. 34,201.42 should not be recovered from them under Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Voltas Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC33
1. M/s. Voltas Limited manufacture, amongst other things, diesel and battery operated fork lift trucks, falling under tariff item 34-B C.E.T. In the price list filed by them in proforma part V, which is meant for excisable goods for sale in retail, they claimed deduction of selling and administrative expenses and interest on working capital.The deduction claimed was at 9.66% for diesel fork lift trucks and 10.49% for battery operated fork lift trucks. The Assistant Collector in approving the price list held that the deduction claimed under the above heads was not covered by the provisions of Rule 6(a) of the Valuation Rules and was hence not admissible. He, however, held that he was permitting deduction to the extent of 7.5% on the retail prices declared. The assessee appealed and the Appellate Collector, under order dated 12.8.1976, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that it was not a speaking order and that no opportunity had been given to the assessee to m...
Tag this Judgment!Ahuja Radios and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC157; 1987(12)LC660(Delhi); 1987(28)ELT329(Del)
1. The petitioners who are engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and export of public address equipments popularly known as amplifiers imported 3000 pieces of R.C.A. tubes type 6L6 GC against U.S. Aid import license No. P/SS/1610092/C/XX dated 6th March 1969. According to Clause 'B' printed on the reverse of the import license, the petitioners were to utilise the imported material only in the products i.e. amplifiers, for which the material had been allowed to be imported. According to the Finance Act 1968-69, no excise duty was livable on tubes, transistors and diodes which are specifically meant and imported for use in products than wireless operating receivers. The high power imported valves imported by the petitioners were cleared from the Bombay Customs vide Bill of Entry No. 1262/28. The goods were assessed to customs duty under Item 73(10) of the I.C.T. at 50 per cent plus Rs. 3/- per piece countervailing duty. The petitioners f aggrieved by thus levy of duty because acco...
Tag this Judgment!Mangat Singh Surrinder Singh Vs. Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Sal ...
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1987]65STC333(Delhi)
Mahinder Narain, J.1. This writ petition has been field by the petitioner who are dealers in dry fruits. 2. By assessments made under the Sales Tax Act, certain sales of the petitioners were taxed at the rate of 3 per cent and others were taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. 3. The provision under which these were taxed was section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act. At the relevant time, it reads as under : '8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. - (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce - (a) sells to the Government any goods; or (b) sells to a registered dealer other than the Government goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3); shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be four per cent of his turnover. 8. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1A) of section 6 or sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turno...
Tag this Judgment!M. Mohan Vs. Maheshwari Seth
Court: Delhi
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi115; 32(1987)DLT135; 1987(12)DRJ190; 1987RLR121
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 4/7/1985 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the petitioner.(2) Briefly the facts are that on 8/7/1981 Smt. Maheshwari Seth, respondent filed a petition for eviction of her tenant M/s. M. Mohan & Co. through the sole proprietor Shri M. Mohan, petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. She alleged that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on 15/1/1975 at Rs. 500.00 per month besides electricity and water charges in two bed rooms, kitchen, W.C. and courtyard of her property at A-2/1 Vasant Vihar.New Delhi in terms of a ed of lease dated the 15/1/1975 executed between the parties, the premises were let for residential purposes and were required bonafide for occupation as a residence for herself and members of her family dependent upon her ; she was the owner thereof an...
Tag this Judgment!Major BenjamIn Chacko Vs. Maha Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: I(1987)ACC110
S.B. Wad, J.1. FAO 91/76 is filed by the claimant for the enhancement of compensation. The claimant had claimed Rs. 6,68,000/- towards compensation while the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 23,218/-. FAO 74/76 is filed by the D.T.C. disclaiming their liability.The accident took place on 24-3-72 near Safdarjung Airport level crossing. Major Benjamin Chacko was proceeding from armed headquarters to his residence in Green Park. When he reached near Safdarjung Airport level crossing bus stand and was proceeding from the left side of the road, DTC bus bearing No. DLP 1200 came from the opposite direction. The claimant asserts that the bus was coming at a very high speed and was being driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road. The DTC bus, according to the claimant, did not blow any horn, and banged into the scooter on which he was riding. At the same time the railway ambulance DLP 4252 cams from behind and the scooter was sandwitched between the bus and the ambulance. The claiman...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Surgichem
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC74
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot has filed an appeal being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. E-l1460-1461/AHD-76-77/83 dated 30th August, 1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee manufactures 'Adhesive Plaster B.P.C.' and declared the same as non-excisable in classification list dated 8-12-1970 which was approved on 19-12-1971 by the then Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Jamnagar. While filing the classification list dated 2nd January, 1983 the same product was also declared as non-excisable by the assessee but the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jamnagar approved the same under Item No. 60 of Central Excise Tariff as Adhesive Tapes all sorts. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay and the said case was remanded back for denovo adjudication.Meanwhile the said manufacturer had also challenged the said classification before Honourable Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Rattan Chand and Sons Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC68
1. The appellants M/s. Rattan Chand & Sons are manufacturers of Shoddy woollen yarn. In their classification list they had claimed benefit of exemption notification No. 167/CE dated 1.9.1973 and the successor notifications 112 of 74 dated 10.7.74 and 30 of 75 dated 1.3.1975.According to them their product fell under serial No. 3(2) of the table attached to notification. Subsequently show cause notice dated 19.11.1976 was issued to them for recovery of a sum of Rs. 42,714.15 paise in respect of clearances between 1.4.1974 to 31.3.1976 on the basis that it was only serial No. 3(3) of the table attached to the notifications that would be applicable to their product and not serial No. 3(2). The appellants resisted the demand. The demand had been issued under Rule 10 and 10-A of the Central Excise rules. Subsequently under corrigendum dated 25.4.1978, the reference to Rule 10 was dropped from the demand confirming the demand under Rule 10-A only. After adjudication, the Assistant Colle...
Tag this Judgment!Saurabh Construction Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC175Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants are M/s. Saurabh Construction Company, a unit of Kalani Asbestos Cement t (P) Ltd. The appellants manufacture RCC spun pipes; A.C. pressure pipes and tiles in different shades. The RCC spun pipes are classifiable under Tariff Item 68 CET. The appellants contended that under Notification No. 176/77-CE dated 18-6-1977 these RCC pipes manufactured and cleared by the manufacturer for home consumption were exempt from duty since the total value of the capital investment on plant and machinery installed in the industrial units was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and the value of the clearances of such goods during the preceding financial year was less than Rs 30 lakhs. This claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 19-1-1979 and the same was up-held by the Appellate Collector under his order dated 8-12-1981. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government, which, on transfer, is now before us as this deemed appeal.2 By letter dated 20-11...
Tag this Judgment!