Delhi Court September 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bata India Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC209
ORDER Nos. 403 and 404/86-A dated 29-5-1986 in Appeal No. ED/SB/T200/77-A and Appeal No. ED/SB/T536/81-A 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Tribunal hereby makes the following rectification in the aforesaid. Order: In place of the sentence: "Only question to be answered is whether both Bata and BSC goods are 'such goods' as Bata brand goods and whether the affixing of brand name amounts to manufacture to make the goods as being of different category", in paragraph 8, the following shall be substituted: Only question to be answered is whether both Bata and BSC goods are different and whether the affixing of brand name amounts to manufacture to make the goods as being of different category....
Parle Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC157
1. By adjudication order dated 12.6.80 the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, held that the product "Non-alcoholic beverage bases" manufactured by the appellants were excisable goods falling under item No. 68 of the CET (Central Excise Tariff Schedule) and that they did not constitute food products or food preparations eligible for exemption from duty under Central Excise notification Nos. 55/75 dated 1.3.75. Accordingly, he imposed on the appellants under Central Excise Rule 173Q (1), a penalty of Rs. 70,000. He also ordered that the appellants should pay duty at the applicable rates on the goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants without payment of duty during the period from 18.6.77 to 5.10.78. The appeal preferred against this order before the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) has been received, on transfer, in this Tribunal for disposal as an appeal and has been numbered 787/80-D.2. Similarly appeals Nos. 411/81 and 412/81- originally filed as revision applic...
Foremost Dairies Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-26-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC148
1. The appellants M/s. Foremost Dairies Ltd. manufacture, amongst other things, skimmed milk powder. Show cause notice dated 6-10-1983 was issued to them on the allegation that they were initially packing such skimmed milk powder in 25 Kilogram polythene bags also but had not enetered the quantity so packed in their RG-1 register and were not paying duty on the same but were repacking the same into small packings of one kilogram, 500 grams and 100 grams, with intent to evade payment of central excise duty. The period of evasion covered by the notice was mentioned as 7-4-19 83 to 30-9-1983. On receipt of reply and after adjudication the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut passed orders on 30-9-1985 holding the charge established. Under the said order he demanded duty amounting to Rs. 32,15,300.80 (basic) and Rs. 1,60,765.04 (special). He further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been preferred.2. We have heard Shri V.G. Tarapore...
Shree Packaging Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1986
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT94TriDel
1. On 23-11-1981 Central Excise Officers intercepted a lorry and found that corrugated containers were being transported by the same but without proper Central Excise documents therefore. An internal gate pass of the appellants M/s. Shree Packaging Corporation was alone available. The factory of the appellants was visited and further investigation taken up. Statements of various persons were recorded.Following the same show cause notice dated 19-5-1982 was issued. The notice was mainly on the basis that the appellants were manufacturers of corrugated board containers and that in order to avoid liability for payment of duty and to falsely claim exemption they had created another firm under the name Shree Mahesh Containers but that the said Shree Mahesh Containers existed in name only. The show cause notice further mentioned that the 2747 containers seized on 23-11-1981 as well as 4266 fully manufactured containers which were found in the factory but without entry in the RG-1 register w...
Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC269
1. This is an appeal which was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government and which on transfer to this Tribunal is being treated as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal to be disposed of accordingly.2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of duty paid on following item :- The appellants claimed the assessment of these under item 68 GET but the classification list approved was for classification of these under Item 52 GET. However, later these were held to be assessable under Item 68 as against original assessment done under 52 GET. The appellants therefore filed a refund claim and claimed the benefit of the exemption notification No. 167/79. The refund claim was partially allowed after the issue of show cause notice to the appellants and taking into account the submissions made by them in this regard. The original authority allowed the refund notwithstanding the fact that appellants had not followe...
Dredging Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: (1995)(79)ELT262TriDel
1. The appellants imported a Dredger under an import licence and sought clearance of the same under duty exemption in terms of Customs Notification No. 262 (Cus.), dated 11-10-1958. The Assistant Collector held that 'ocean going vessels' be alone are allowed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 262/58-Cus. and that the imported dredger was not an 'ocean going vessel'. He therefore, refused to extend the benefit of the Notification. The Appellate Collector also rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal.2. The appellants at the time of hearing adopted the arguments advanced in another appeal (No. CD/1459/1984-B2 - M/s. Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.) where too the issue was the same. We have disposed of that appeal holding that the dredger imported in that case was to be considered as an ocean going vessel. The present respondents were appellants there and the present appellants were respondents. The goods involved in both the cases are same. We, therefore, do not go into ...
C.R. Jagannathan and anr. Vs. Subhash Chandra Kapoor and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: ILR1986Delhi545
Mahesh chandra, J. (1) By this order I propose to dispose of this civil contempt petition filed under Sections 11& 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act by the plaintiffs. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners and the defendants-respondents and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings. (2) Facts relevant for disposal of this civil contempt petition are that suit No. 911/86 was filed by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 to 4 for specific performance of the contract for sale of property bearing No. 13-1051, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and in the said suit I.A. 2858/86 was filed in which following injunction orders were issued by Sultan Singh, J. on 30th day of April 1986: 'DEFENDANTS Nos. I and 2 ars hereby restrained from entering into any agreement with defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and from creating any lien, charge, mortgage, encumbrance or creating any tenancy and from parting ...
Fouress Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Administration and ors ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT420; [1987(54)FLR7]; (1987)ILLJ485Del
Mahinder Narain, J.(1) The award in this case was passed on 4th August, 1982. (2) Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act was inserted by way of an amendment by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 46 of 1982). The amending Act received the assent of the President on 31st August, 1982. and the Central Government appointed 21 st August, 1984, as the 'appointed dale' on which the amended provision came into force. (3) The question before me is whether the amended Section 17B which came into force on 21-8-1984, would apply to the award dated 4th August 1982. (4) By a judgment reported as : (1986)IILLJ217SC (Bharat Singh v. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and others). The Supreme Court has said that 'Section 17B on its terms does not say that it would bind awards passed before the dale when it came into force. The respondents' contention is that a Section which imposes an obligation for the first time cannot be made retrospective. Such section sh...
J.L. Jhanb Vs. Sheela Devi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1986
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi215; 30(1986)DLT470; 1986(11)DRJ251
Sunanda Bhandare, J.(1) This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 1st August 1986 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd August 1986 whereby both the courts below allowed the objections filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 144 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code . and ordered restitution of the tenanted premises to respondent No. 1.(2) The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Shri J.L. Jhanb obtained on order of eviction against one Smt. Sheela Devi on 25th September 1985 in respect of the entire ground floor, except passage for approaching the second floor and third floor of premises bearing no 28/12 East Patel Nagar, New Delhi including the garage in which respondent no. 2 was carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Kerala Concern. In execution of that order respondent no. 2 was thrown out of the shop on 2nd July 1986 and vacant possession was given to the a...
Supreme Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC112Tri(Delhi)
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The Department's allegation against the appellants was that a quantity of 107.895 kgs. of synthetic yarn had been removed by them without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty and without observing Central Excise formalities. The appellants had themselves excluded the said goods as "invisible loss" in their RT-12 return for the month of February, 1975. The appellants plea that the said quantity represented the inevitable loss which arose during the process of dyeing and finishing of yarn received from the spinning department was rejected by the Collector who held, by his order dated 20-12-1976, that synthetic yarn was to be accounted for in Central Excise records as soon as it came off the spindle. The manu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »