Delhi Court July 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.
ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT490TriDel
1. The appellants M/s. Ideal Sheet Metal Stampings and Pressings (P) Ltd. filed a refund claim on the ground that duty had been paid under T.I. 68 CET but that the product (Ball Bearing Bobbin Holders) was properly classifiable under Tariff item 15A(2) CET. This refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 23-7-1981. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under his order dated 4-11-1982. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred.2. On the appeal being taken up Shri Sachar for the Deptt. pointed out that there was a delay in the presentation of the appeal. We found that there is a delay of 3 days. Shri S J. Vyas, Chartered Accountant representing the appellants requested that he may be permitted to make an oral request for condonation of delay. After hearing both sides we had ordered the delay to be condoned. Thereafter arguments on merits were heard. The product in issue is Ball bearin...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Universal Cables Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT828TriDel
1. The Department has filed this Appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, dated 11-2-1983. The point at dispute in the present case is whether Aluminium Dross and Skimmings would attract duty under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector held that Aluminium Dross and Skimmings are dutiable under Tariff Item 68 and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,960.60 and Rs. 2,046.88. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) held the view that Dross and Skimmings are merely the scum thrown out in the process of manufacture of aluminium sheets and it cannot be said that Dross and Skimmings are transformation resulting in a new and different article.He held that they are not liable to duty under Item 68.2. Shri J.N. Nigam, Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the appellate authority has placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian ' Aluminium Company v. A.K.Bandopadhyay (1981 E.L.T. 3-146). He urged that the ratio of ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lawkim Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC337
1. review notice issued by the Government of India to review the order passed by the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Bombay, has been transferred to the Tribunal and is being treated as an appeal.2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on 5-2-1978 alleging that the respondents had cleared sets of stator and rotor affixed with the Thermal Overloading Protectors (hereinafter mentioned as TOPs) to M/s. Voltas Ltd., Thane, the cost of which was not included in the price list before the clearances. It was urged that the respondents had suppressed the cost of TOP in the price list. The respondents were asked to pay the duty of Rs. 1,93,107.60 for the period 1-7-1976 to 31-7-1978. The respondents in the reply urged that they were following the procedure prescribed by the Assistant Collector, Bombay for the movement of TOP imported by M/s. Voltas Ltd. There was no objection to such a procedure since "1968. They have been submitting' the price list for the* hermetic Stator/Ro...
Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT388TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order-in-appeal cited above by which the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Electricity Board on the ground that the Board (the appellants) should have appealed against the Assistant Collector's order fixing a formula for computing the consumption of electricity in pump houses for agricultural purposes and not against the order dated 21-4-1981 passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Patiala, which, according to the Collector (Appeals), was merely of an implemental nature.2. We have heard Shri Y.N. Chopra, Consultant, for the appellants and Smt. D. Saxena, S.D.R., for the respondent.3. The Superintendent's order dated 21-4-1981 finalises the provisional assessments made earlier in respect of electricity generated by the Punjab State Electricity Board during the year 1979-80 on the basis of a formula approved by the Assistant Collector, Patiala for working out the quantum of electricity supplied for agricultural purposes. The order a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC253
1. The dispute in the present appeal turns on interpretation of Central Excise Notification No. 36/76, dated 25-2-1976. Though the respondents were eligible for the benefit of the notification inasmuch as they had completed expansion of the installed capacity of their factory on 28-2-1976 (i.e., on or after 1-11-1975 as laid down in the notification), in reality, they could not avail themselves of the benefit because of the fact that they did not receive in time the Chief Director's (Directorate of Sugar and Vanaspati) certificate entitling them to avail themselves of the duty concession under the said notification. By the time they received the certificate in or about October, 1977, the entire sugar production of the sugar year 1975-76 had been cleared as free sale/levy sugar in the normal ratio of 35 : 65. On this position being brought to the notice of the Chief Director, he informed the respondents by his letter dated 24-12-1977 that as the factory was entitled to the benefit for ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Hindustan Mineral Traders and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC310Tri(Delhi)
1. The two appeals were heard together as the issue for decision in both is the same.2. After issue of notice that excisable product falling under Item 22-F was being manufactured by the respondents M/s. Hindustan Mineral Traders and M/s. Karnataka Asbestos but they had not taken out the necessary licence therefor, the Assistant Collector in his orders dated 2-12-1981 and 29-3-1982 confirmed demand for payment of duty and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50/- on each of the respondents. On appeal the said orders were set aside by the Appellate Collector under his orders, dated 24-6-1982 and 5-10-1982. It is against the said orders that these appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. According to the Appellate Collector the crushing of asbestos stone into powder by the respondents did not amount to manufacture attracting the Central Excise duty.3. We have heard Shri K.C. Sachar for the appellant Collector and Shri M.I. Shah for the respondents.4. Admittedl...
G. Loucatos and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1138Tri(Delhi)
1. The questions for decision surviving for a consideration in this appeal are whether the five years time-limit under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 19H in raising demand against the appellants is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and whether imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,000/- against the appellants for breach of certain rules set out in the show cause notice and orders of the lower authorities are justified.2. In response to notice of hearing, the appellants by their communication dated November 18, 1986 (received in the Tribunal on 1-12-1986) intimated that they are not in a position to appear for the hearing either in person or through an authorised representative. They requested that the case may be decided on merits in their absence and they have nothing to add to the representation made in their appeal.The letter further refers to a valuation issue raised against them by appropriation of an amount of Rs. 18,619.87p. from the Ban...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Mercury Rubber Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT725TriDel
1. The issue arising for determination in these two appeals is the classification of a product called 'hospital sheeting' or 'mackintosh' manufactured by the respondents. The goods consist of cotton fabrics which are rubberised, the final product being comprised predominantly of rubber. The question is whether the product falls under Item 16-A(2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act as rubber products, plates, sheets and strips unhardened, whether vulcanised or not, and whether combined with any textile material or otherwise or under Item No. 19(1)(b) as "cotton fabrics" subjected to the process of rubberising.2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, Sr. D.R. for the Appellant Collector and Shri V. Lakshmikumaran Advocate for the respondent.3. A similar issue had come up for consideration of this Tribunal in Collector of Central Excise, Bombay v. International Rubber and General Industry, Bombay, disposed of by order No. 373/87-D, dated 11-5-1987.After a detailed consider...
Indian Aluminium Company Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC461Tri(Delhi)
1. Few assessments have seen so many to-and-fros and up-and-downs like this assessment. It is a long history and began in 1967 with the Assistant Collector telling these manufacturers Indian Aluminium Company to pay duty on their aluminium foil scrap at crude rate i.e.under Central Excise Tariff Heading 27(a)(i). When the appellants asked for refund of the duty that they had paid on the scrap from August, 1965 to November, 1967, they were told that their claim was time barred. Then in November, 1975 they were told to submit a classification list for assessment of the foil scrap under Heading 27(c) as foils. This alarmed the appellants, as well it might, and so they asked for confirmation from the Collector about assessment of the foil scrap as scrap and for this purpose they wrote one or two letters to him seeking instructions on the assessment of the scrap. Eventually in June, 1976, a meeting was held at which it was decided that the aluminium foil scrap was to be charged to duty as ...
Delhi Development Authority Flats App. Association Vs. Delhi Developme ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1987
Reported in: 32(1987)DLT378; 1987RLR514
Goswami, J. (1) This judgment will dispose of batch of writ petitions which have been listed before us and involve a common question for decision by this Court. Though the petitioners allottees are registered under two different schemes-one of 1979 and the other of 1982 but the challenge is only to the abandoning of the scheme of allotting flats to citizens on hire purchase basis and insisting on cash down payments from the allottees.(2) The respondent-Delhi Development Authority, under the regulations framed two schemes. The first scheme is known as Registration scheme on new pattern 1979 of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by the D.D.A. and the second scheme is for allotment of D.D.A. flats to retired/retiring Govt. servants of i982. The object of the first scheme as stated in the very first clause is that the Scheme has been formulated to reduce the sale price of M1G/LIG and Janata flats so as to be within the reach of common man and to facilitate payments the mode ha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›