Delhi Court November 1987 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.
Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC331Tri(Delhi)
1. The main controversy in these appeals is whether M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Cromp-ton') were a "related person" of M/s. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') within the meaning of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. There are certain other subsidiary issues also. But since the issues are common and inter-connected and related to the same assessee, they were argued together before us. This combined order will dispose of all the 15 aforesaid appeals, 14 of the department and one of the assessee.2. The essential facts are that the assessee manufacture electric bulbs, flourescent tubes and MV lamps. The dispute before us is regarding valuation of their goods for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty. The period of dispute is from 18-3-1978 onwards.Daring this period, Crompton were the principal distributor of the assessee. They lifted around 80% of the assessee's production. As per agreemen...
Shri Hari Ram Paper Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC176Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Meerut.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper falling under Tariff Item 17 and were clearing the goods at concessional rate under Notification No. 15/78, dated 24-1-1978 read with Notification No. 128/77, dated 18-6-1977 based on their installed capacity being less than 2000 metric tonnes.The appellants are stated to be a small scale industry. On check of the stocks of goods manufactured by them, some discrepancies were found with reference to stocks as shown in. the statutory RG-1 Register. The lower authority held 76 reels as having been removed without payment of duty and also held against them that they were not keeping records properly and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed, 181 reels held to have been not accounted for properly, were confiscated with redemption fine of Rs. 2.000/- and duty on 76 reels held to have been removed without...
Electronics Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT252TriDel
1. When the appeal was called, the assessees, M/s. Electronics Consortium, did not appear . We accordingly heard the SDR.2. The SDR said that the goods were declared as component parts of cassette tape recorders and had been assessed as such parts. The importers want assessment for countervailing duty as articles of plastic with exemption under Notification No. 228/76-Cus. He said this is not permissible, because even though the goods may be made of plastic, they are parts of tape recorders, tape deck mechanism. The assessment, therefore, is correct and there is no case for refunding the duty.3. The importers imported a consignment of 32 cases containing 2400 sets of tape deck mechanism and 2400 sets of plastic moulded components, from Japan, which were assessed under heading 92.01/13 plus countervailing duty under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff. They claimed refund of Rs. 8,477/- representing the countervailing duty on the ground that under Notification 228/76-Cus. countervailing dut...
K.R. Enterprises Vs. Colector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT297aTriDel
1. The appellants, M/s. K.R. Enterprises, did not appear at the hearing. We, therefore, heard the SDR on behalf of the department.2. In their appeal M/s. K.R. Enterprises say that the Collector (Appeals) order No. 49/CE/DLH/84 dated 28th February, 1984 was not correct and he was wrong to hold the thermoelectric chillers as assessable under Item 29A of the Central Excise Tariff. They say in their appeal that these food preservers have limited cooling capacity and cannot form ice. They had given a practical demonstration of the foods preserver before the senior officers of the Central Excise. The term refrigerator and refrigerating appliances had not been defined under Item 29A and even according to BTN Heading 84.15 and also IS : 3615 : 1967. Glossary to terms used in refrigeration and air conditioning their products do not all in the category of the refrigeration and refrigerating appliances. The Collector has not discussed the authority relied upon by the appellants.3. The food prese...
Collector of C. Ex Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT651TriDel
1. The point for decision in this case is whether the cost of secondary packing should be excluded while determining the value of the goods under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. For facts of the case, we re-produce below paragraph 2 of the revision show cause notice issued by the Central Government which is now before us for disposal as if it were an appeal filed by the department: "2. Facts of the case are that the assessed manufacture electric bulbs, fluorescent tubes and MV lamps which are all excisable under Item 32 of the First Schedule of the C.E. & S.A., 1944. The 'electric bulbs' are initially packed in 2-ply corrugated paperboard which are bent in the shape of cylinders and fastened by gum tape, where the two sides meet in order to retain the cylindrical shape. The two ends of the packing are bent inwards so that the bulbs are held in tact inside the packing. The gum tape contains the specification of the bulb inside viz. trade name, voltage, and re...
P.M. Bakshi Vs. Shikha Bakshi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT107
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This civil revision is directed against an order dated 11th July, 1986, of Shri S. M. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Delhi by which he had given a finding that Delhi courts have jurisdiction to try the suit brought by Smt. Shikha Bakshi for recovery of maintenance.(2) The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the petition are that parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites, admittedly, at Delhi in Rana Pratap Bagh. It is also not disputed that they resided together as husband and wife outside Delhi. The desertion of the plaintiff Smt. Shikha Bakshi also took place outside Delhi. She has sought recovery of Rs. 2,0001- per mensem as maintenance from her husband with effect from 1st October 1982, onwards.(3) The suit has been contested by the petitioner-defendant, inter-alia, on the grounds that Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit inasmuch as no part of the cause of action has arisen at Delhi and defendant-petitioner is also n...
Ramlal Vs. Begum Zaman Ali Khan
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: 1989RLR21
C.L. Chaudhary, J.(1) The J.D. by letter dt. 13.9,1979 refuted the stand taken by the L.D.O. in the letter dt. 1.9.1979 and further alleged that the request for grant of permission to sell the property Was made in 1976 and thonerartment took more than 3 years to owner the terms which had been complied with by remitting the demand draft. The demand draft was again sent with a request to accept the amount and grant the permission. But she was informed by letter dt. 4.10.1979 by (he L.D.O. that the terms issued to her on 19.6.1979 had correctly been cancelled and she would be communicated the revised terms. By letter dt. 3.11.1979 she was given the revised terms. by which an amount of Rs. 3,74,782.00 was claimed for granting the permission for the transfer. Thereafter the J.D. made several representations to deptt. saying it had wrongly and illegally cancelled and withdrawn the terms offered by letter dt. 19.6.1979 as the payment was made in compliance with those terms, but those represen...
Rattan Mala JaIn and ors. Vs. Prem Chand JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-24-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT50
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This revision petition by the wife of defendant No. 2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated November 19, 1985 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Delhi. (2) Prem Chand Jain, plaintiff had filed a suit turn partition of Huf property against his father and three brothers. It was alleged that the plaintiff had 1/5th share in the property and each of the defendants had got 1/5th share. A preliminary decree was passed by the then Addl. District Judge on 28-2-1933 for partition of the property in accordance with the said shares and a local commissioner was appointed to suggest the mode of partition. The local commissioner consequently filed his report. Against the report of the local commissioner, only defendants Nos, 3 and 4 filed objections but at the time of hearing, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 absented themselves. The learned Addl. District Judge found that the objections, in any case, bad no merit and consequently dismissed the same. He accepted the report of...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Kusum Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT6TriDel
1. At the hearing today the respondent M/s. Kusum Products did not appear.2. The learned SDR, Mr. Krishnamurthy submitted to the court two documents one, an order purporting to be an authorisation from the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta authorising the Assistant Collector to file the appeal before this Tribunal; another document he produced before us is a paper listing dates on which various actions were taken in the office prior to the appeal, to explain the delay of two months in filing it. These two documents were produced after the department had been directed to do so by the Tribunal a number of times.3. The order authorising the Assistant Collector to file appeal is worded as follow :- "I hereby authorise Assistant Collector (Tribunal and Review), Collec-torate of Central Excise, Calcutta-II Calcutta to act on my behalf in the matter of filing appeal/application/cross-objections/statement of reference before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal/Collec...
Hindustan Motors Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT681TriDel
1. The supplementary appeal has been filed on the ground that the original application for refund was in respect of consolidated order and the supplementary appeal is now filed for the purpose of record.Hence the delay is condoned.2. The order-in-original disposed of 15 appeals by a common order. The Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the present appeal is only in respect of SI. Nos. 11 & 12 i.e. order-in-original No.S-40(7)-23/80A dated 13.7.81 and No. S-40(7)-24/80-A dated 16.7.81. She states that the applicants are not filing any appeals in the other cases nor are they challenging the decisions. Hence the two appeals were heard together as common questions of facts and law were involved and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common order.3. In regard to the Appeal No. 1513/82-B2, the grievance of the applicant is that no hearing was granted to the applicant to putfotward their plea. From the order, we notice that the appeals were dismissed on the ground that t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »