Delhi Court February 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Ceakay Rubber Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC52
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Cochin, against Order-in-Appeal No. 102/83(C) dated 23.8.1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by Ceakay Rubber Industries (respondents in this case), both on the issue of limitation and on the merits of the dispute. In so far as the merits were concerned, the Collector (Appeals) found that masticated rubber made by the respondents out of natural rubber by the process of mastication was not a product different from natural rubber and that, therefore, masticated rubber was not excisable under the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant-Collector has challenged this finding as well as the finding on the issue of limitation.2. We have heard Smt. D. Saxena, S.D.R., for the appellant-Collector and Shri Joseph Kodianthara, Advocate, for the respondents.3. At the outset, the counsel for the respondents brought to our notice two decisio...
Delhi Plastics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-11-1988
Reported in: (1990)LC602Tri(Delhi)
1. Common facts and issues are involved in these 5 appeals. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The appellant is a proprietary unit owned by Shri Arun Agarwal. The facts, In brief, are that on 21 -11 -1986, the appellant entered into a contract with M/s. De' Al' Dross of Singapore for purchase of 1000 M/Tons of High Density Polythelene Grade 55013 equivalent to Mariex 5502 of Hungarian origin at the price of US $ 530 per M/Ton. However, the goods actually came to India from the Hungarian supplier M/s.Chemolimpex. They were, in all, 220 M/Tons of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) comprised in 5 lots. The appellant filed 5 Bills of Entry (Nos.654 to 658) on 28-2-1987 for their clearance. The Bills of Entry were accompanied with the certificate of Origin, Bill of Lading and Invoice.The Invoice was issued by the Singapore party, M/s. De' Al' Dross and showed the price of US $ 530 per M/Ton. All the three documents were attested by the Canar...
Richardson Hindustan Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC145
1. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the two products, viz. Vicks VapoRub and Vicks Inhaler, manufactured by the appellants are "Medicaments, including those used in Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Biochemic system" falling under Heading 3003.30 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or these are patent or prcprietory medicaments, other than those medicaments which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, Homoeopathic or Biochemic; - "Others" falling under Tariff Heading 3003.19.2. The appellants filed a revised classification list for these products under Tariff Heading 3003.30 - "Medicaments including those used in Ayurvedic system", in supersession of their earlier classification lists Nos. 221/85-86 and 181/85-86. Prior to 15-4-1986, they claimed classification of the said products under Heading 3003.19 as "Patent or proprietory medicines-Others". The basis of this revised classification list was that the Directorate General of Technical De...
Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC66
1. Dhrangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. has filed a Revision Application under erstwhile Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 159 of 1981 dated 27.3.1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Thereafter the same appellant has filed two more appeals before the Tribunal mentioned as below :- Since the issue involved is identical in the above appeals, the same are disposed of by this consolidated order.3. The facts of appeal Nos. 666/81A and 2324/83A are similar. The facts in appeal No. 666/81A are as below :- The appellants are manufacturing Caustic '.oda and within their factory they have a unit for the manufacture of matal containers. They consume ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Thirani Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC180
1. The issue arising for decision in these appeals by Revenue is eligibility of precipitated chalk to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 23/55-CE, dated 29-4-1955 as subsequently amended.2. At hearing of the appeal Shri Sunder Rajan in fairness drew attention of the Bench to decision of the Tribunal in case of Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot v. Madhu Chemicals, Bhavnagar, 1988 (23) ELT 166 (Tribunal) and stated that in this decision the Tribunal had held precipitated chalk eligible to benefit of exemption under the notification irrespective of the end-use. He also stated that Revenue had accepted this decision and in view of this decision Revenue has no case in these appeals before the Tribunal. In spite of the above frank submission of Shri Sunder Rajan, Shri K.K. Kapoor, learned Consultant for the respondents, persisted in making his submission and drew attention of the Bench to the other decision of the Tribunal in case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut v. Gulshan...
Indian Plastics Limited and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC565Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Notification No. 7/80, dated 27-2-1980 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 exempted artificial or synthetic resins and plastic materials specified in Column (2) of the Table appended to the Notification and manufactured from raw naphtha or any chemical derived therefrom on which the appropriate amount of Central Excise duty had already been paid from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was in excess of the duty of excise specified in Column (3) of the said Table.In Column (2) of the Table, against Serial Nos. 3 and 4, Phenol formaldehyde moulding powder and Urea formaldehyde moulding powder were specified. M/s. Indian Plastics Limited, appellants in the first appeal, are the manufacturers of Phenol Formaldehyde moulding powder (hereinafter referred to as P.F. moulding powder) and Urea formaldehyde moulding powder (hereinafter referred to as U.F. Moulding Powder).2. Superintendent of Central Excise, Range V...
Balaji Laminating Works Vs. J.R. Malik and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)ARBLR125(Delhi); 34(1988)DLT248
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) By this order (2) The facts giving rise to this order are M/s. Balaji Laminating Works had filed this suit under Section 14 of Indian Arbitration Act with a request that Shri J.R. Malik, arbitrator in the case should be ordered to file his award in the court and in pursuance thereof the award was receive in court and notice of filing of the award was accepted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and on 6th September, 1985 notice was ordered to be issued to defendant No. 2 which was served on 13th September, 1985. The plaintiff filed objections in the form of I.A. No. 5678 of 1985 under Section 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act requesting that interest be awarded on the amount given in the award @ 18 per cent per annum till the payment of the entire decretal amount The defendant No. 2 also filed his objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the award which are I.A. No. 6404 of 1985. The following issues were framed on the objections of d...
Virender Nath Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 1988(1)Crimes836; 34(1988)DLT243
Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) This is a petition filed by Virender Nath seeking directions to the State to release him prematurely on the plea that he was only 17 years of age at the time of commission of offence, i.e., 29th March, 1978. After trial he was convicted by Shri T.S. Oberoi, Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life vide judgment dated the 31st January, 1981. According to him he has already undergone 12 years of imprisonment on including the period of remissions and, thereforee, as per sub-para (b) of paragraph 516-B of the Punjab Jail Manual, he ought to have been released after he had undergone sentence of ten years including remissions. That sub-para reads as under : 'Action to be taken on expiry of 10 years-(b) (2) The case of a female prisoner and of a male prisoner under 20 years of age at the time of commission of offence who is undergoing : (i) Imprisonment/s for life; (ii) Imprisonment/s for lif...
Lal Chand Goel Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT364
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(1) This is the plaintiff's second appeal. He failed in both the courts below (the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court) in the suit seeking principally the relief of his reinstatement as a clerk in the office of the defendant, the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA). TheD.D-A. is a statutory Corporation and was constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Service conditions of its employees are governed by the Delhi Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1961 (for short the Regulations) framed under the aforesaid Act. Under Section 53-B of the Act, no suit can be instituted against the D.D.A. in respect of any act done or purporting to have been done in pursuance of this Act or any Rule or Regulation made there under until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been left at its office and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, the nature of relief sought, the ...
Metal Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC57
1. The question to be decided in this case is whether plastic torches manufactured by the appellants prior to 1.3.1982, but cleared from the factory during the period from 1.4.1982 to 24.4.1982 were liable to pay central excise duty. The lower authorities have held that duty was payable on the goods at the time of clearance.2. Shri Rangwani has argued that the goods fell under Item 15A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff prior to 1.3.1982. By the Finance Bill 1982, which became an Act on 11.5.1982, Tariff Item 15A(2) was amended and as a result of that amendment plastic torches became classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. According to Shri Rangwani, prior to 1.3.1982, plastic torches were fully exempted from Central Excise duty by exemption Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 29.5.1971. His contention is that the plastic torches on which duty has been demanded by the Department, were manufactured prior to 1.3.1982 when these goods, falling under Tariff Item 15A(2), were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »