Delhi Court April 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 C. Ex. Vs. Brakes India Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1990)LC560Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue in the appeal relates to the classification of "stop light switches" manufactured by the appellants for installation in automobiles. Under order dated 14-5-1982 the Assistant Collector dropped the action initiated earlier for classification of the product under Item 61-CET. This was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 25-1-1984. This appeal is by the Collector of Central Excise against the said order.2. Shri Madhav Rao, Advocate for the respondents points out that the classification of such stop light switches came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. P.M.P. Auto Industries Ltd., 1987 (31) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.), and that the High Court had accepted that these switches cannot be classified under Item 61-CET and would, therefore, fall under Item 68-CET. He further pointed out that this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Automotive Ancillary Services, 1987 (32) E.L.T. 735 (Tribunal) followed the Bombay High Court judgment though ...
S.S. JaIn and Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT107TriDel
1. Under the impugned order dated 10-2-1983 the Collector of Central Excise, Madras held that in spite of sufficient time and opportunity being granted the appellants M/s. S.S. Jain & Company had not sent a reply to the show cause notice and had also not appeard for the personal hearing and he was, therefore, disposing of the matter with reference to the available records. Shri M. Ganesan, Advocate for the appellants submits that the Collector was in error in the said observations and that there had been therefore, no fair hearing afforded by the Collector and that the impugned order may be set aside on that ground itself. Shri Chak-raborty for the Department submits that the very fact that not even a reply was sent to the show cause notice in spite of sufficient opportunity establishes that the appellants were not interested in participating in the adjudication and in the circumstances the Collector was right in proceeding to adjudicate in their absence.2. Whatever may be the mer...
Flexoplast Abrasives (India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC85
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 a product, which is claimed to be phenolic resin but being in the nature of an intermediary product not capable of being marketed and thus could not be considered as goods for the purpose of Central Excise levy.Process of the manufacture of the product as seen from the record is as under : "The product, phenolic resin is manufactured by the factory under a Chemical process with the combination of phenol and formaldehyde as raw materia's, in presence of catalyst. Phenol is first melted, and pumped in the reaction kettle and then formaldehyde and caustic soda (which acts as a catalyst) are added to the mixture and is heated upto 75/80C by introducing steam inside the kettle under vacuum pressure for 3 to 3-1/2 hours after that, dehydration starts under vacuum pressure at 60/65C, when dehydration is complete the kettle is cooled by cir...
The Motor and General Finance Ltd. Vs. V.M. Joy and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT60
C.L. Chandbry, J.(1) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction that the Hire Purchase Agreement dated 30.8.1983 containing arbitration clause be ordered to be filed in the court and the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Inderjit Gulati, Advocate. (2) The case of the petitioner is that by a Hire Purchase Agreement dated 30.8.1983 the petitioner gave on hire to the respondent No. I a motor vehicle of Tata make bearing the following specifications :- A.Engine NO. 692-DOI-7-74460. b. Chasis No. 344-073-7-71367. c. Regd. No. KLI-4421. On the terms and conditions stated in the agreement. The respondent No. 2 guaranteed due performance of the 'said agreement by respondent No. 1. In terms of clause 6 of the agreement the parties agreed to refer all questions and matters of difference touching the construction their of or any act or thing in regard to the rights, duties and obligations in ...
Kartar Singh and ors. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 1988(14)DRJ273
Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J. (1) It seems that the petitioners are involved in a case under Section 304/34 Indian Penal Code . This case was registered at the instance of the complainant party against whom there is a cross case pending under Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code , The petitioners were granted bail but subsequently on applications moved on 4th October, 1986 and 4th August, 1987 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge cancelled the bail on the ground that the petitioners are trying to threaten witnesses and causing injuries to them.(2) I have been taken through the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and I in particular approached the order with a view to find out as to what was the basis for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to cancel the bail. Cancellation of bail is a very serious matter, though it cannot be denied that in appropriate cases the bail ought to be cancelled if it is found that the conduct of the accused is interfering with the course of justice. Thus, if ...
Barikad Abdul Rahiman Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-11-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT80; 1988(14)DRJ333
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has challenged in this petition the detention order dated 30th of January 1987 passed by the State of Kerala in pursuance of which the petitioner was taken into actual detention on 20th of August 1987. The detention order was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting and keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting and keeping smuggled goods, and it was passed under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(l)(iv) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974.(2) The detention order came to be passed in respect of an incident dated 11th of April 1986 when the customs authorities are alleged to have recovered 21 gold biscuits of foreign make and Indian currency worth Rs. 24,100.00 from the possession of the petitioner and his accomplice. On investigation it was found that the petitioner along with some other persons was indulging in...
Upadhaya Valves Manufacturers Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC36
1. The appellants did not appear. By their letter VNU/86-87/4269 dated 21st September, 1987, they said they did not wish to appear before the Appellate Tribunal and requested the case to be decided on merits in their absence.2. In their appeal, they listed a number of grounds to show that the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, No. 1129/ Cal/83 dated 21-11-1983 was erroneous. The goods they manufactured, cast iron pipe fittings, with socket or with flange, were nothing but iron castings falling under Central Excise tariff item No. 25. They make the fittings in their foundry. The smoothing or levelling or polishing of the flange does not change the characteristics of the iron casting, and it remains a pipe fitting; and making of holes will not change it from cast iron pipe fitting into a part of a machine. The Collector (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Central Board of Excise and Customs by letter No. B-35/21/75-TRU, dated 23-9-1975 held that if the cru...
Kutty Flush and Furniture Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC189
1. The issue in the present matter arises as a result of change in tariff item 16-B of the central excise tariff. 16-B: Plywood, blockboard, laminboard, batten board, hard or soft wall boards or insulating board and veneered panels, whether or not containing any material other than wood; cellullar wood panels, building boards of wood pulp or of vegetable fibre, whether or not bonded with natural or artificial resins or with similar binders; and artificial or reconstituted wood being wood shavings, wood chips, saw dust, wood flour or other ligneous waste agglomerated with natural or artificial resins or other organic binding substances, in sheets, blocks, boards or the like.As a result of the changes made in the 1982 Budget, the tariff entry was reworded as below: 16-B: Plywood, blockboard (including flush doors), laminboard, batten board, hard or soft wall boards or insulating board and veneered panels, whether or not containing any material other than wood; cellular wood panels; buil...
Keytue Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC302Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured paints and varnishes falling under Item 14 of the Central Excise Tariff. In addition, they were also manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68. In the Classification list filed subsequent to 7.2.74, they claimed exemption under Notification No. 71/78 dated 1.3.78 and Notification No. 80/80 dated 19.6.80. They also filed declaration that they were not manufacturing excisable goods other than those falling under Tariff Item 14. The Department found that they were manufacturing goods falling under Tariff Item 68 also, in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process was ordinarily carried on with the aid of power.They did not file declaration claiming exemption under Notification No.179/ 77-CE dated 18.6.77. They also did not file declaration claiming exemption from licensing control as required under Notification No.111/78-CE dated 9.5.78 for such goods. On verification of the accounts the Department found that...
Parle Beverages Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT606TriDel
1. The appellants manufacture aerated waters of various descriptions and hold a Central Excise licence to do so. Aerated waters were to the material time assessable to Central Excise duty on an ad valorem basis.For a long time the appellants were paying Central Excise duty (where payable) on the basis of the trices charged to dealers by their sole selling agents Mis. Kismat Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kismat) through whom they used to book their sales.2. On or about 13.12.1972 the appellants submitted a revised price list. This revision, according to the appellants, was due to a change in their pattern of sale whereby they began to sell aerated waters directly to a number of wholesale dealers and not through the sole selling agents.3. Certain inquiries were conducted by the Excise Department. The statements of those persons who were declared by the appellants to be their wholesale dealers were recorded and certain records were also examined by the Department. From these inve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »