Delhi Court January 1988 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.
Harig India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC156
1. The bench first took up the application for condonation of the delay in filing supplementary appeal No. 3404/87-B1 and condoned it.2. The learned Counsel's only argument was that the date of payment of the duty was during the currency of old Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, when the limitation was one year. If this limitation is applied, their refund claim would be in time. Furthermore the payment of the duty was under orders of the officers. It is, therefore, necessary to apply the old rule to their case and to overrule the judgment of the lower authorities holding their claims for refund were time barred. In fact, said the learned Counsel, there is no time limit for their claim, because they paid the moneys because of the decision of the departmental officers. They contested the assessment of the goods at all times, but the departmental officers paid no heed to them. They were entitled to receive back their money regardless of any time limit or any other consideration. The co...
Indian Oxygen Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-27-1988
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT449TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of welding electrodes and Mig wire (MW I).The dispute in the present proceedings turns on the classification, under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET, for short), of MWI wire.The said wire is nothing but steel wire coated with copper. It is stated that the appellants purchase duty paid steel wire and get the same copper-coated by the process of electrolysis through job workers.The copper-coated steel wire is brought into the appellants' premises and reeled to the desired sizes. The excisability of the product was determined by the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise by his order in the form of a letter dated 2-7-1975 by which he held that as the wire in question was bare continuous wire in reels, and since flux was not used in the process of welding with such wires, they were not classifiable as welding electrodes falling under Item No. 50, CET but under Item No. 68,...
i.E.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC299
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured .products falling under Tariff Item 15AA and availed of benefit of exemption Notification No. 101/66-C.E., dated 17-6-1966 under Serial No. 4 of the said notification. These products were manufactured out of the ingredients some of which were exempted under the said notification while in respect of, they had paid duty under T.I. No. 1.5 A A. The products manufactured by the appellants hereinafter described as said goods are the following : The various ingredients used as raw material and the duty paid/discharge status of the raw material as set out by the appellants are :-_______________________________________________________________Product OSAAs used as Remarks raw materials_______________________________________________________________ (1) (2) (3)_______________________________________________________________1.Cirrasol i) Cation...
Collector of Customs Vs. Garden Silk Mills (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC292
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported Darey Concard blankets of different sizes and the respondents by refund application claimed benefit of Notification No. 169/77-Cus., dated 6-8-1977 claiming that the blankets imported were for printing fabrics and therefore were covered by the terms of the notification which allowed exemption in respect of rubber blankets falling under Chapter 40 of the First Schedule when imported into India for use in the printing industry. The Assistant Collector held that the goods were for use in the textile industry and not in the printing industry and turned down their plea. The Collector (Appeals) in his order, however, held that term 'printing industry' was wide enough to cover textile printing also and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The Revenue have come up in appeal against his findings and h...
Satbir Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: 1988(15)DRJ89
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) The present appeal by Satbir Singh is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated February 8, 1984, whereby he was convicted of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The allegation that he had also unlawfully used his licensed pistol for committing the murder of Kulwant Singh was proved and thus he was held guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. (2) Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is relevant to keep in mind the brief facts as disclosed by the witnesses of the prosecution. The accused Satbir Singh owns a house bearing No. 1/5547, Gobind Nagar, Shivaji Park, Shahdara, Delhi. He was residing on the first floor of the said house. A part of the ground floor was in possession of Kulwant Singh and his wife Smt. Amarjit Kaur. Two days prior to the date of occurrence...
Surender Nath Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-25-1988
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi276; 1988(14)DRJ326
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) The petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for calling the records of the respondents and for quashing the letter dated May 5, 1981, issued by the Deputy Director (H) I of the Delhi Development Authority respondent No. 2 whereby the allocation of the flat in question made in favor of the petitioner on May 15, 1980, has been cancelled and a writ of mandamus requiring the respondents to treat the allocation of the flat made in favor on the petitioner as valid and still in force and require the respondents to accept the necessary Installments in respect of the said flat without imposing any penalty.(2) The facts giving rise to this particular petition, in brief, are that in response to the Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme 1977-78 the petitioner got himself registered under the said Scheme for allocation of a flat in Category Iii and vide letter dated May 15, 1980, the respondents informed the petitioner that he had been declared successful for the allocati...
Kamlesh Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT389; 1988LabIC1543; (1989)ILLJ128Del
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.(1) The husband of the petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2- Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (for short the 'BHEL'). He died at a young age. Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, his widow, who is petitioner in this petition, applied for a suitable appointment in Bhel on compassionate grounds and on 5th November 1975 was appointed as a Record Clerk on daily rated basis. With effect from 13th October 1976 she was appointed as Assistant Grade I in the scale of Rs. 475-12-530-15-751 plus other usual allowances as admissible from time to time and was kept on probation for a period of one year. The petitioner satisfactorily completed her period of probation on 12th October 1977 and was regularised as Assistant Grade I with effect from 13th October 1977. The petitioner claims that in the month of April 1982 she has been attending office regularly but was not allowed to mark her attendance in Attendance Register by Sh. N. D. Kaira, Senior Manager of Bhel who is respondent No. 5 in...
Collector of Customs Vs. Mysore Electrical Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT698TriDel
1. These four appeals involve a common issue, namely, whether tubes made out of vacuum impregnated glass cloth and reinforced with expoxy, imported by the respondents, were liable to be charged to additional duty of customs equivalent to the Central Exise Duty leviable under Item 22F of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET for short). While the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Madras, held that additional duty of customs was chargeable, the Appellate Col- lector of Customs, Madras, thought otherwise. On perusal of the Appellate Collector's orders, the Central Government, for the reasons set out in its show cause notice (F. No. 380/110 and 123/81-Cus. II, dated 18-9-1981) issued to the respondents under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act (as it stood then) formed a tentative view that the Appellate Collector's orders were not correct in law. The reasons for this view were set out in the notice as follows :- "The Appellate Collector while relying on Section 3(3) of CTA 75 appears to have ...
The Himalayan Co-operative Milk Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT379TriDel
1. Since both the appeals involve common questions of fact and law, a common order is being passed.2. Brief facts of the matters are that the appellants set up liquid nitrogen plant in a dairy complex where butter and skimmed milk powder falling under 1C and 1B respectively of CET are manufactured. Liquid nitrogen is classifiable under Tariff Item 68. The appellants' case is that since the production and clearance of liquid nitrogen falls well below the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs in a financial year they are not liable to pay any duty in terms of Notification 105/80, dated 19-6-1980. That exemption, however, is subject to a certain condition namely that "the officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise is satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the said goods, under clearance, are manufactured is not more than Rs. 10 lakhs".The impugned ord...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Poly Flex (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC257
1. Since a common question of classification is involved in both the matters, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. Question involved in these appeals is whether saddles for scooters/motorcycles manufactured by the respondent-company according to the process mentioned hereafter are classifiable by the tariff item 15A(4) of Central Excise Tariff as "articles made of polyurethane foam" or under tariff item 68 as that tariff stood before 28-2-1986.Manufacturing process of the saddles is described in one of the orders-in-original dated 28-5-1986/8-9-1986 as follows:-- To manufacture the seat saddles, the imported raw material like polyol and polyisocyanate are used. These raw materials are poured into moulds and heated to a certain temperature. These moulds are closed immediately and the material inside is allowed to expand to the shape of the mould for a required time. Then these seat saddles are removed from the moulds and are subject to compression and after compression, thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »