Delhi Court May 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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Aurofood Private Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT261TriDel
1. The Appellant Collector of Central Excise says in his appeal that the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras was wrong when he said in his order-in-appeal No. 225/82(M) dated 2-7-1982 that M/s.Aurofood Private Limited need not pay the duty on the metal cans manufactured for them by M/s Indian Metal Industries from metal sheets supplied by the first named firm. The appeal says that the Appellate Collector should have held that M/s. Aurofood Private Limited were manufacturers of the metal containers in view of the definition of manufacturer as given in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that the duty was payable by them. The appellants says that the sheets were supplied by M/s. Aurofood and the same were converted (I supposed the means made) into metal containers by M/s.Indian Metal Industries, for which job Indian Metal was paid 50 np. a can. The containers were embossed with M/s. Aurofood's biscuit brand name "TRUE". It therefore, appeared, continues ...
T.P. Mineral (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC129Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufacture Graphite Flakes out of Graphite Ore. The process of manufacture as set out in the order of the Collector (Appeals) is as under : "The graphite ore is grinded in a mill grinder and the grinded powder is put into a container containing water and kerosene mixed together. The graphite portion floats on the surface with the support of the kerosene oil and other materials like mud, sand and other things fall to the bottom. The graphite material is collected and dried again either in sun or in a coal fired oven." The main plea before the Collector (Appeals) was that this processing of the graphite ores for getting graphite flakes did not amount to manufacture. Before the adjudicating authority they took the plea that graphite flakes produced by them were a natural product obtained by processing of ores. According to them they were not re...
Graphite India Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT398TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s Graphite India Limited, Durgapur, (hereinafter referred as the appellants) had applied for and obtained the facility of invoice value assessment in terms of Central Excise Notification No.120/75, dated 30-4-1975 in respect of assessment of certain goods (falling under Item No.68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule) sold to M/s Carbon Corporation Ltd., Nasik. By a letter dated 14-10-1981, the said facility was withdrawn by the Assistant Collector who asked the appellants to remove the goods under Central Excise Rule 56-B since, in the view of the Assistant Collector, the appellants were not eligible for the facility of invoice value assessment. The Assistant Collector's reason was that the appellants had made certain financial investments in M/s Carbon Corporation Ltd., Nasik. The appellants protested against the decision stating that the appellants and M/s Carbon Corporation Ltd. had no mutual interest in the business of each ot...
Bhukhanawala Diamond Tools (P) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT303TriDel
1. The goods involved in the present appeal were imported by M/s.Bhukhanawala Diamond Tools Pvt. Ltd., Bombay (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants"). They were described in the invoice as "Formset Dresser Diamond" and in the Bill of Entry as "Synthetic Industrial Diamond". The appellants claimed classification of the goods Heading No. 71.02(3) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with the benefit of exemption Notification No. 131-Cus., dated 1.7.77. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 22.9.82 in which he ruled the classification to be under Heading No.68.01/16(1). He thus directed the assessment of the-goods under Heading 68.01/16(1) at 100% ad valorem plus 30% ad valorem plus 8% ad valorem as additional duty equivalent to the excise duty leviable under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In appeal, the Assistant Collector's order was confirmed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by his Order dated 15.2....
Rajesh Bhalla Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-21-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT261
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) Shri Rajesh Bhalla, is the petitioner. By way of filing the present revision petition, he has challenged the order of the Add Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 13.5.86 whereby he Along with six others was charged to stand trial under Sections 147, 366 read with Section 149 and 354 read with Section 149 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.3.82, Miss NirmalSharma, a student of 2nd year in Miranda House College, Delhi, was waiting for the bus on the Mall Road bus stand for going to her house after attendingclasses. At that point of time, car bearing registration no. Dhd 2707 came and stayed in front of her. There were six occupants of the car, out of whom three were Sikhs, aged between 21 and 22 years. In the meantime, two Sikh boys came on a motorcycle and stopped it near her. One of the Sikh gentlemen told Nirmal Sharma to seat herself in the car. She refused to doso. Nirmal Sharma stopped a thr...
Collector of Customs Vs. Pyrosystems Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT273TriDel
1. M/s. Pyrosystem (P) Ltd. - the respondents before us - imported at Madras a consignment of metallic refractory sheaths. The Customs Authorities assessed the goods to customs duty under Heading 69.03 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to additional duty of customs under Item No. 23B(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). After clearance of the goods on payment of the duty so assessed, the respondents filed a claim for refund of duty on the ground that the goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 90.28 or 90.29(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, without additional duty of customs, in terms of Customs Notification No. 362/76, dated 2-8-1976.The Assistant Collector of Customs, by his order dated 7-6-1980, rejected the claim as unsubstantiated as the respondents did not produce the catalogue and the analysis certificate called for by the A.C. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs, by his order dated 28-3-1981, accepted the respondent's clai...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rishi Gases (P) Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT423TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal by Collector of Central Excise, Indore is whether the respondent is eligible to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 201/79-CE, dated 4.6.1979 as amended, in respect of Acetone used in dissolved Acetylene and whether such acetone is an input for the purpose of notification in respect of such dissolved acetylene.2. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi found in favour of the respondent hence this appeal by Revenue to the Tribunal.3. Notification No. 201/79 so far as the material for the present appeal exempts all excisable goods on which the duty of excise is leviable in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 have been used as raw materials of component parts from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs subject to fulfilment of conditions under the notification. The o...
Collector of Customs Vs. Boots Company (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT305TriDel
1. The present matter arises out of the notice (F. No. 380/80/82-Cus.II dated 20-9-1982) issued by the Central Government under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 to M/s. Boots Company (India) Ltd., Bombay ("the Respondents"), asking them to show cause why the order-in-appeal noted above should not be annulled.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that me respondent imported two consignments of "Frozen Ox Pancreas Glands" which were charged to duty at 60% ad valorem + 15% ad valorem under Heading No.05.01/15(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.Later, the respondents claimed, by submission of two applications, the benefit of Notification No. 44-Customs, dated 1 -3-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The appeal against the said order was allowed by the Appellate Collector by his impugned orders. The consequential refund of duty was also paid to the respondents.3. The basis on which the Central Government proposed to revie...
Smt. Mehmood Fatima Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: May-20-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT1
S.N. Sapra, J. 1. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) thereby challenging the judgment dated June 5, 1979 passed by Shri Mar Kishan Malik, Additional District Judge, Delhi, in LAC Case No. 133/69thereby dismissing the reference petition under Section 18 of the Act and confirming the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 13/- per sq. yard in respect of the acquired land. In pursuance to Delhi Administration Notification No. 15(60) 61-LSG dated January 15, 1964 issued under Section 4 of the Act and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act published vide Notification No. F. 4(79)/64 L&H; dated November 12, 1964, the land, including the land in question, situated in the revenue estate of village Chandrawali (alias Shahdara) Delhi was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, made and published his Award No. 2178 on November 16, 1968 thereby determining the market value of the l...
Bharat Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: May-19-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT301TriDel
1. M/s. Bharat Sales Corporation, Calcutta (the appellants herein) imported a consignment of "crankshaft rear end packing". The customs authorities assessed the goods to duty under Heading No. 68.01/16 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. After payment of the duty and clearance of the goods, the appellants claimed that the correct classification was under Heading 84.64 and that consequential refund of duty be granted to them. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector by an Order dated 3.8.1982 which we cannot describe even as cryptic - it can hardly be called an adjudication order. It reads: "on examination of the claim, it is found that the goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 68.01/16(1), the claims, therefore, untenable".This, in spite of the appellants having referred to order-in-appeal No.2489/78 passed by the Appellate Collector, as noted by the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector seems to have been oblivious to the fact that he was s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »