Delhi Court December 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.
T. and R. Industries Vs. Central Board of Trustees
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-11-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT266
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) In this writ petition the challenge has been made to an order dated October 12, 1983 of Shri K.L. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, by which he had given the finding that certain amounts paid to the workers of the petitioner under the so-called 'production incentive scheme' are covered by the definition, of wages given in the Act and the petitioner was liable to pay his contribution regarding provident fund in accordance with the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (2) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had introduced the grant of bonus as an incentive for more production and this payment of bonus to the workers being not covered by the difinition of wages given in Section 2(b) of the Act the authorities under the Act had no power to call for contribution of the provident fond from the petitioner in respect of the said amounts paid as bonus to the workers. In the counter filed by the responde...
Collector of Customs Vs. Crystaline Corporation
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT63TriDel
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue. The review show cause notice issued by the Government has been transferred to this Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.2. The respondents did not appear and we have heard Sh. D.K. Saha, JDR for the appellant. The respondents imported a consignment of one Kannegiesser Fusing Colstar Model HKZ 4/6, 6 and claimed the refund of duty on re-assessment under Notification 41/78 on the ground that the item is a "Collar Turning and Blocking Machine" - an item specified at Sl. No. 19 of the Schedule annexed to the notification aforesaid. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim. On appeal, the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal extending the benefit of the notification.In the review show cause notice, it is stated that the collar turning and blocking machine is different from the colstar model fusing imported by the respondents. The two machines are intended to perform different functions. While the term "Fusing" means the pressing of comp...
Collector of Customs Vs. Zandu Pharmaceuticals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT114TriDel
1. The issue arising for decision in this appeal is classification of Polyethylene Glycol for the purpose of Customs, whether it falls under Tariff Heading 39.01/06 of CTA-75 or Chapter 34.01/07 read with ItemCollector of Customs, Cochin v. Premier Tyres Ltd. 1985 (20) ELT124 (Tribunal).Sh. A.S. Sunder Rajan, JDR reiterates the arguments urged by the Revenue when the Tribunal took the aforesaid decision to secure their rights before the Appellate Court. That however, is no reason that we should depart from the decision. Following the decision, we hold Polyethylene Glycol as properly classifiable under Heading 38.01/19(1) of CTA. A necessary corollary of this classification would for additional duty be the classification under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff.2. In view of the foregoing, this appeal by Revenue is hereby dismissed....
Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Weaving Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC9Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. Central Excise Notification No. 80/76 dated 16-3-1976 exempts cotton fabrics from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon when subjected to the finishing processes specified therein. Calendering and cropping (shearing) are amongst the processes specified. The appellants were availing themselves of the facility of Central Excise Rule 49A which provides for deferment of payment of excise duty leviable on yarn till the time of clearance of the fabrics manufactured therefrom. This is subject to the condition that when cotton fabrics are cleared in grey (unprocessed) condition, 1-1/2% of the yarn duty is also paid by way of interest on the deferred duty and that 3% of such duty is paid as interest if the fabrics are cleared after processing. The appellants were subjecting the grey fabrics manufactured by them to the processes of calendering and shearing. The lo...
Dcw Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT703TriDel
1.The issue involved in both the appeals being common, they were taken up together for hearing and the present order covers both the appeals.2. On 10-12-1987, when the appeals came up for hearing, we had heard Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR, for the respondent and had announced our order dismissing the two appeals. We now proceed to give reasons for our order.3. Both the appeals involve Haveg pipes and fittings imported by the appellants for their chemical factory. These pipes are stated to be comprised of asbestos to the extent of 60% and phenolic resin to the extent of 40%. The pipes are said to be resistant to high pressure and temperature. On import the goods* were classified under heading No.68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975. Later on, the appellants filed claims for refund of duty on the ground that the pipes and pipe fittings being recognizable parts of machinery, should have been classified and assessed t...
Goa Paints and Allied Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC699Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these 5 appeals, they arise out of one common order in appeal and relate to the same appellants. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The dispute in these appeals is regarding refund claims of the appellants which were filed on the basis that excise duty already collected on the amount of freight and transit insurance included in F.O.R. destination prices should be refunded to the appellants. The lower authorities have no objection in principle to freight and transit Insurance being excluded from the assessable value. However, they have rejected the refund claims of the appellants on two grounds - (i) the invoices issued by the appellants did not show the amount of freight and transit insurance; and 3. The appellants do not press for that portion of their refund claims which is hit by the time bar of Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, in respect of the amount which is within ...
Trans Yamuna Cement Dealers Association and anr. Vs. Lt. Governor of D ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi247; 1988(14)DRJ275; 1988RLR134
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J. (1) Petitioner has impugned the Delhi Cement: (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982. Submission of the petitioner is that such a control order for Cement could not be issued under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as Cement is not an essential commodity Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the production, supply and distribution can be controlled of the essential commodities. Essential commodity is defined in Section 2(a) Clauses (i) to (xi) of the Act. Clause (xi) of Section 2(a) provides as under :- 'ANY other class of commodity which the Central Government may, by notified order, declare to be an essential commodity for the purposes of this Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtue of Entry 33 in List Iii in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.'A perusal of this clause shows that a commodity would fall under Clause (xi) of Section 2(a) if (1) it is declared an essential co...
inderjit Vs. Mehar Singh Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-10-1987
Reported in: 1988RLR153
Jagdish Chandra, J. (1) This is an appeal from the order dt. 25.10.75 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, whereby he had awarded to the appellant Rs. 23,885.00 as compensation to be recovered jointly and severally from the respondents together with costs of the petition as also future interest @ 6% per annum from date of award till the date of realisation of the awarded amount, in case the respondents failed to deposit the awarded amount within two months from the date of the award. The break up of the awarded amount is as follows :- (1) General damages Rs. 20,000.00 (2) on account of injuries sustained: Rs.711.10 P, (3) Transport Rs. 2,275.00, (4) Nourishment expenses : Rs, 900.00. (2) The accident involving the petitioner took place on 10.2.71 at about 9.15 A.M. on Ring Road near Raj Talkies when the petitioner was coming on a two Wheeler scooter from Sriniwas Puri and going towards his office in R.K. Puram and when he reached near Raj Talkies he was struck against by a speedin...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT620TriDel
1. The dispute in the present four appeals lies in a narrow compass.The issue is whether M/s. Ambika Silk Mills Co. Ltd. (the respondents) were entitled to have separate prices for short length pieces of fabrics cleared by them. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his Order dated 2-9-1982 held that the respondents were not so entitled on the ground that in the price lists claiming lower prices for short lengths, defective and sub-standard goods, they had described the fabrics by merely prefixing certain digits before the short number of the sound and good fabrics of the same variety. This is the dispute involved in one of the appeals. In the other three matters, the Assistant Collector demanded differential duty from the respondents on such sub-standard, short length fabrics in pursuance of his earlier decision that the assessable value of such fabrics would be the same as that of the sound fabrics. In appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, set aside the A...
Govind Poy Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC222
1. Since a common issue is involved in the lour appeals and one cross objection listed above and they pertain to the same appellants, they were clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The point of dispute in these proceedings is whether the charges recovered by the appellants towards testing, maintenance and handling of the gas cylinders belonging to the customers should be included in the assessable value of the gas supplied in the cylinders. The period in dispute is from 15-5-1980 to 16-3-1985. During this period, the appellants manufactured acetylene gas. The customers sent their own cylinders to the appellants. The appellants filled the gas in those cylinders and delivered them to the customers. The appellants had filed two price lists during this period. The gas itself was priced at Rs. 24 to Rs. 26 per cubic metre. A sum of Rs. 44/- per cylinder of 5 to 7 cubic metre capacity was recovered by the appellants from the customer additionally. The appellants d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »