Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(12)LC1054Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue in this appeal is whether the "Printed Sample Folders" of the appellants M/s. M. Vadilal & Co. (P) Ltd. were not liable to pay excise duty by virtue of Notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1.3.1975.In the show cause notice dated 31.5.1979 duty had been demanded for the period 1.3.1975 to 31.3.1978 with reference to the said printed sample folders as well as printing blocks. Shri V.G. Shade, Consultant for the appellants confirmed that the issue in the present appeal relates to the printed sample folders only. Under his order dated 30.6.1982 the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Baroda held that the subject goods were not products of printing industry and hence were not entitled to exemption from payment of duty under item 13 of the Schedule to Notification No. 55/75. It is the appeal preferred by the appellants against the said order, to the Central Board of Excise and Customs that, on transfer, is the present deemed appeal.2. We have heard Shri V.G. Bhade, Consul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1870; 33(1987)DLT119; 1987RLR505
Aggarwal, J. (1) Rule D.B (2) BY. means of this writ petition under Article 226 of of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Kaushalya has challenged the legality of the order dated 25th June, 1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, externing her under section 47 of the Delhi Police Act (hereinafter for the. sake of brevity called 'the Act') from the Union Territory of Delhi for a period of two years. (3) The relevant facts are that on 11th September, 1985 the Station House Officer, Delhi Cantt. sent a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District for externment of the petitioner under section 48(f) of the Act. it was stated in the proposal that the petitioner who is a resident of RZ-326, Brahampuri Pankha Road, New Delhi, is a known bootlegger and is a habitual seller of illicit liquor, charas, heroin, etc. and that she had been twice convicted for offences under section 61(1) 14 of the Punjab Excise Act and is involved in a numb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1988(14)DRJ32
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) This order would dispose of Suit No. 775A of 1986 filed under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 with a request that defendants 2 and 3, the co-arbitrators should be directed to file their award in the Court and the said award be made a rule of Court. It would also dispose of objections filed by the Union of India defendant to the award which objections have been registered as I.A. No. 5020 of 1986.(2) On the filing of the present suit notice was issued to defendants 2 and 3 with a direction to file the award and the proceedings and in consequence award and the proceedings were filed and notice of filing of award was given to the parties and it was thereupon that defendant-Union of India filed its objections against the award and the said objections were registered as I.A No. 5020 of 1986.(3) The contention of the Union of India is that the arbitrators have failed to give proper opportunity to the Union of India ; that the arbitrators have miscond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(12)LC1210Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") submitted a rebate claim in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 108/78 dated 28.4.1978 on account of excess production of sugar during the period from May, 1978 to September, 1978. The claim was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, Gorakhpur by an order dated 4.11.1978. On 11.1.1979, The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad, issued a trade notice to the effect that the exemption granted under the notification could not exceed the actual amount of duty payable. It appears that the notice further stated that it was observed that duty leviable on the tariff values of sugar, as fixed from time to time, was less than the rebate granted in terms of the notification. Accordingly, two demands for duty in Form DD2 both dated 16.10.1979 were issued, one for Rs. 34,214.33 on account of rebate which had been granted in excess and the other for Rs. 4,618.63...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(42)ELT4TriDel
1. M/s. Hi-Tron Electronics, Moradabad have filed an appeal being aggrieved from order passed by Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported electronic components for T.V. Receiver Sets vide Bill of Entry No.A-10541/8 dated 23-9-1986 and claimed clearance under O.G.L. Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-86 Policy. On scrutiny and examination it was observed that the goods imported were in the form of mounted/populated PCBs for V.C.R. and not CTV. The goods were thoroughly examined and samples drawn for inspection were shown to Mr. KJ. Shastri, Sr. Design Executive from NELCO and on inspection of samples it was observed that the goods imported were PCB assemblies for VCR minus the power supply, T.D.M. and Chassis component and the value of these goods were ascertained @ Rs. 1,320/- CIF per piece. Thus the appellant's declaration that these were components of RTV was totally wrong and there was mis-declaration in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : [1990]69CompCas33(Delhi)
Ms. Sunanda Bhandare, J. 1. Sayaji Mills Ltd., respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to a 'the company'), registered under the companies Act was incorporated in the year 1941. It is engaged in the manufacture of starches and its derivation, liquid glucose, dextrose, orbital and other by products. Since its inception, the company has been selling its products through a sole selling agent, C. Doctor and Company, a private limited company in starch business since 1941. On the amendment of the Companies Acts 1956 by the Amending Act of 1974, it is necessary to seek approval of the Central Government for appointment of sole selling agents. Respondent No. 3 applied and obtained the approval of the Central Government to the appointment of C. Doctor and Company as its sole selling agents for the periods 1972-77, 1977-82 and 1982-87. C. Doctor and company was a family concern of Sayaji Mills Ltd. inasmuch as the directors of C. Doctor and Company were closely related to the chairman of respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1987)(31)ELT1026TriDel
Customs and Central Excise Officers visited the premises of M/s. Kanpur Delhi Goods Carriers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad, on 21-2-1979 at about 1900 hrs. and found the truck No. UTG 6025 standing in front of the office of the said Transport Company loaded with foreign newsprint paper weighing 6475 kgs. of the following description :- Shri Jeewan singh, Driver, Shri Dudha Shanker, Cleaner of the said truck, Shri Tej Bahadur (the appellant herein), Shri Rajendra Prasad, all connected in this case stated before the officers that the entire newsprint was loaded from the two godowns of M/s. Maya Press (P) Ltd. (another appellant herein). Further Investigation was carried out by the officers by recording the statements of the concerned persons including the Director of Maya Press (P) Ltd., Shri Alok Mitra.After due adjudication it has been held by the original adjudicating authority, namely the Assistant Collector of Central Excise that goods even though cleared for home consumption can be confisc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(42)ELT109TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture inter alia electric wires and the cables.They received copper rods which are flatened into strips. The strips are insulated into varnish, bonded glass fibre, paper, cotton and enamels to improve its quality and for suitable use as conductors.Copper strips are covered under T.I. 26A. The covering of the said strips by glass fibre does not bring into existence in different goods or fresh articles. The appellants filed a classification list on 25-6-1982 and sought classification of the said copper strips covered with glass fibre under T.I. 26A(2) of CET.2. On 14-10-1982, a show cause notice was issued that the goods should be clas-sitied under T.I. 68 because the copper strips being insulated acquired the separate and distinct character as conductors. The appellants sent a reply contending that the copper strips by being bonded with glass fibre would not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Act. The Assistant Collector held that the strips lapped ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1989)(42)ELT126TriDel
1. The appellants imported Industrial Laundry machines with spares (Steam presses with boilers and steam issuing and cleaning tables). The Custom House assessed countervailing duty thereon with reference to Item No. 33C of the Central Excise Tariff. This item covers domestic electrical appliances, irrespective of the fact whether such appliances are used in household or hotels, shops etc. But the condition is that the appliance should be of the domestic type. The goods imported in this case were of the industrial type as are commonly used in commercial laundry establishments. The learned S.D.R. stated very fairly that in view of the earlier decisions (Appeal No. C-1479/81-B2) (C. C., Bombay v. Indexpo International (P) Ltd.) in similar type of cases, he was not opposing this appeal.2. Since the goods are indisputably of the industrial type and not of the domestic type, countervailing duty with reference to Item 33C would be incorrect. We allow the appeal and order that the countervail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 33(1987)DLT92
H.C. Goel, J.(1) Shri Shiv Shankar, Kapoor appellant, had leased out the second floor of his house No. 19/10. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, to Amar Bose respondent for residential purpose for a limited period of three years after obtaining of the permission of the Rent Controller under the provisions of S .21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') on August 8,1980. The respondent-tenant did not vacate the premises at the expiry of the period of three years. On October 14, 1983 the landlord filed an application against the respondent-tenant praying for the delivery of possession of the demised premises by way of execution of the order passed, under S. 21 of the Act. The tenant filed objections against the same. It was alleged that the permission granted by the Rent Controller under S. 21 of the Act was illegal and invalid as the same was obtained by the landlord's concealment of material facts and playing a fraud on the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller had passed th...
Tag this Judgment!