Delhi Court February 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.
Adreena Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excsse
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC155
1. This appeal has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal. Before referring to the main disputes referred to the Larger Bench it would be necessary to set out the facts of other case.2. On 10.9.1971, the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Faridabad, visited the premises of the appellants. They seized certain woollen yarn on the ground that in processing the yarn, power had been used. The appellants were found processing and dyeing hand-knitting worsted woollen yarn with the aid of power. A hydro-extractor, working with the aid of power and a smally quantity of processed and dyed hand-knitting worsted woollen yarn was found installed and was functioning in the said premises in a small room. The processed and dyed worsted woollen yarn kept on bamboos, sticks was being dried. The blower was found fitted with an electric motor. The stock of processed and dyed woollen yarn was verified and it was found that the appellants had 2780.650 kgs. ...
Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC950Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture, among other things, sutures for medical use. For this purpose, they imported aluminium foil of two varieties.One variety was 'aluminium foil laminated to paper and heat-seal coated' and the other variety was 'aluminium foil heat-seal coated'. At the time of importation, the goods were classified under H. 76.03/0(2), C.T.A., and paid duty accordingly. In this appeal before us, there is no dispute about the classification. The appellants, subsequent to importation and payment of duty, claimed refund of a part of the duty paid by them. In respect of 6,600 sheets of aluminium foil, the appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 173-Cus/77 and Notification No. 67-Cus/79. In respect of 256 kg. of aluminium foil (only heat-seal coated), they claimed the benefit of Notification No.173-Cus/77. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim recording, inter alia, as follows :- "The party has elaborately argued that the contents of aluminium in respect of the f...
Apollo Zipper Company Private Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC67
1. Rule 6(b) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 requires that when excisable goods produced by a manufacturer are not sold but are captively used by him and when the value of the comparable goods is also not available, the value of the goods captively consumed should be determined on the basis of cost of production or manufacture and "including profits, if any, which the assessee would have normally earned on the sale rf such goods." During the years 197^ and 1975 (upto September), the appellants manufactured aluminium strips and used them captively for further manufacture of zip or slide fasteners. The lower authorities determined the assessable value of aluminium strips on the basis of cost of production plus 7% notional profit. The plea of the appellants is that during the material period they had not earned any profit but had, in fact, incurred a loss and hence the notional profit of 7% should not be added.2. By their letter dated 29-12-1986, the appellants informed tha...
N.K. JaIn Vs. Wealth-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD594(Delhi)
1. In these second appeals the question is whether the Appellate Asstt.Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Dehradun, whose orders dated 30th March, 1985 in respect of assessment year 1982-83 and of 14th August 1985 for the later two years are brought in appeal, rightly rejected the assessee and confirmed the assessments on the point that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(xxa) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in respect of value of shares of M/s. Narendra Explosives Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'NEL').2. The value of shareholdings in NEL was stated to be Rs. 7,75,400, Rs. 4,60,000 and Rs. 7,70,500 for the three years respectively but these are not in dispute neither they are relevant for adjudication of the question before us.3. To understand the controversy and further as to whether the primary question which was necessary to adjudicate the issue were considered and decided, a brief history of NEL must be stated, which is that it was i...
Madan Mohan Marwaha Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. and anr ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: 1987(13)DRJ65; [1987(54)FLR500]
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The challenge in this writ 'petition is to the Award of the Labour Court who had held on a reference being made, that the petitioner was not a workman.(2) The petitioner as appointed as a Fire Fighting Officer by letter dated 7th January, 1963. He was subsequently confirmed as such in a scale of Rs. 510-555. The duties of a Fire Officer are enumerated in the Fire Manual. The duties of a Fire Officer, as per the manual, are as under : (1) Fire fighting. (a) Operational and maintenance of fire fighting equipment in the mills (springlers, hydrants hand appliances, overhead tanks and pumps, etc.). (b) Prepare equipment for inspection and send test and inspection reports. (c) Organise, arrange drill for fire fighters and supervise their day-to-day work. (d) Fight fires and prepare reports after investigation. (e) Keep contact with the Delhi District Fire Fighting authorities and seek their help when needed. (f) Inspect the fire equipment installed at various places outsid...
Surinder Nath Malhotra Vs. S.C. JaIn and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi60; 32(1987)DLT59; 1987(12)DRJ326
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the orders passed by the Authorities under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) whereby they have held that the petitioner was holding 84.44 Sq. Meters of land in excess of the premissible limit (2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the father of the petitioner was the owner of plot No. A-35 Friends Colony, New Delhi. The area of that plot is 584.44 sq. Meters. (3) According to the avertnents in the writ petition, and there is no specific denial to the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, a building plan for construction on the said plot of land was sanctioned on 22/7/1975. Construction commenced on the said land and as on 17/2/1976 the building was still incomplete. This land was inherited by the petitioner from his father, after the father's death, and subsequently a lease deed was executed in the name of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that...
Adreena Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC97Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal has been referred to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal, Before referring to the main disputes referred to the Larger Bench it would De necessary to set out the facts of the case.2. On 10.9.1971 the Preventive Staff of the Central Excise Division, Faridabad, visited the premises of the appellants. They seized certain woollen yarn on the ground that in processing the yam power had been used, The appellants were found processing and dyeing hand-knitting worsted woollen yarn with the aid of power. A hydro-extractor, working with the aid of power and a small qty. of processed and dyed hand-knitting worsted woollen yarn was found installed and was functioning in the said premises in a small room. The processed and dyed worsted woollen yarn kept on bamboos, sticks was being dried. The blower was found fitted with an electric motor. The stock of processed and dyed woollen yarn was verified and it was found that the appellants had 2780.650 kgs. of woollen...
Vaz Forwarding (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT229TriDel
1. The Department of Telecommunication (The District Manager, Railwaypura Telephone Exchange, Ahmedabad) imported certain spare parts by a Bill of Entry Cash No. 12D dated 30-9-1978/3-10-1978. After clearing the goods on payment of duty, the importers applied for refund of customs duty on the ground that the imported goods were replacements for 11 numbers battery cells, supplied free of cost by the foreign exporters. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund application on the ground that there was no provision in the Customs Act to refund duty recovered against surrender of damaged goods which are already cleared. He, therefore, held that there was no authority under which the refund claim could be admitted.2. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector upheld the Assistant Collector's order observing that, "the appellants' case was based entirely on equitable considerations and that, under the provisions of Law, ther...
L.M. Moppes Diamond Tools India Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT749TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that a consignment of "Compax tool blanks" imported by M/s. L.M. Moppes Diamond Tools Pvt.Ltd., (the appellants) was assessed to basic customs duty under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.After clearance of the goods on payment of duty so assessed the appellants claimed refund of a portion of the duty on the ground that the goods correctly fell under Heading No. 28.01/58(13) of the said Tariff Schedule. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector by his Order dated 26-12-1980. In appeal, the Appellate Collector, by her Order dated 22-8-1981, remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration. It is the revision ap...
Hind Lamp Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC657Tri(Delhi)
The appellant had been submitting price lists of various goods manufactured by it under Rule 173-C of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) from time to time during the period 15.3.73 to 30.9.75. These price lists had not included, as per declaration on the reverse of these price lists, the cost of secondary special packing and delivery charges recovered by the appellant company from its customers. On submission of the price lists the appellant company had been clearing the goods on payment of duty on the basis of its declared assessable value i.e. without including the cost of special secondary packing and delivery charges declared by it on the reverse of the price lists. The appellant company had also been submitting R.T. 12s during this period.Neither the price lists were approved by the Department nor were any assessments made on R.T. 12 by the proper officer till a show cause notice was issued on 3rd July, 1976 asking the appellant company as to why the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »