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.
Grindwell Norton Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT472TriDel
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm herein manufactures grinding wheels falling under Item 51 CET (as it then stood) in the manufacture of which abrasive grain falling under Item 68 CET is used. The appellant firm gets duty paid abrasive grain and for availing the benefit of Notification No. 178/77 dated 18-6-1977 (as amended by Notification No. 295/77 dated 28-9-1977) the appellant firm by their letter dated 11-7-1977 requested the authorities for granting them the permission under the said notification. Since they could not work out the ratio of inputs used in the manufacture of every unit of the finished product they could not avail the benefit of the said notification. They had, however, been intimating the department about receipt of duty paid goods and taking credit in respect thereof under relevant D-3 forms. In view of their difficulty to arrive at the ratio of input in the finished product they requested the department to guide and educate them to work out ...
Chander Kanta Vs. Hans Kumar and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-07-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi73; 1988(14)DRJ337; 1988RLR297
Sunanda Bhandare, J. (1) The petitioner who is an I.A.S. officer and respondent No. 1 who is working in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat were married on 13th April 1976 in accordance with Hindu rites. On 20th February 1978 a girl was born out of the said wedlock. Differences arose between the parties and the petitioner filed a petition for divorce being H.M.A. 237 of 1978 under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was dismissed on 15th January 1980. Tension and disharmony continued between the parties and thus they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of the Act on 15th December 1983. In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 13B, a decree of divorce could not be passed straight away and, thereforee, the file was ordered to be consigned to Record leaving the parties at liberty to take further action as contemplated under Section 13B(1) of the Act. Since respondent No. I failed to join in the second motion as required un...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Debpara Tea Company Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT690TriDel
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta has, in the present appeal, assailed the Order-in-Appeal dated 3-8-1982 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, on the ground that the Collector (Appeals) ought not to have allowed a uniform reduction of 10% of the electricity generated in terms of Notification No. 105/78, dated 27-4-1978 which, according to Appellate Collector, is admissible in the case of a generating station but not the respondents' electricity generating unit situated in their factory. In support of this contention, the definition of "generating station" in the Electricity Act has been cited.2. The respondents have filed a cross-objection in which it has been urged that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in holding the duty was payable on the quantum of electricity consumed in crushing wheat and pumping of water.3. We have heard Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the appellant-Collector. None appeared for the respondents. However, they had sent written submissions.4. The d...
Punjab National Fertilizers and Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC105
1. By the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Chandigarh confirmed two demands for Central Excise 'duty of Rs. 34,57,955.21 on 8533.138 MT of Bicarbonate of Soda consumed captively during the period from 1 -12-1985 to 28-2-1986 and of Rs. 14,68,528.32 on 3733.099 MT of Bicarbonate of Soda captively consumed during the period from 1-3-1986 to 1-4-1986. The demand show cause notices were issued on 29-5-1986 and 26-9-1986 respectively. In the show cause notices, it was alleged that the appellants manufactured and consumed captively the aforesaid quantities of Bicarbonate of Soda without obtaining a Central Excise licence as required under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and without accounting for the same in RG1 register, without completing other Central Excise formalities and without payment of duty and contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173B, 173C, 173G, 173F and 174 read with Rule 226 ibid. The appellants were asked to explain why the...
Punjab Anand Batteries Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT436TriDel
1.The appellants M/s. Punjab Anand Batteries contend that their goods are button cells and do not fall in CET Item 31(i) which covers only paper and metal jacket dry cell batteries. The button cells are totally different from ordinary cells used for torches and transistors in technology, raw materials, manufacturing process and even end use.Their button cells are silver oxide based, while the torch batteries manganese based. The button cells do not conform to electric batteries and so must fall in Item 68. The Customs authorities assess button cells to countervailing duty under Item 68.2. The learned SDR, however, argued that the button cells are nothing but electric buttons. Item 31(i) covers all dry electric batteries.These button cells are storage batteries. Simply because they are used in watches does not entitle them to be classified as goods other than batteries. He quoted AIR 1977 SC 597 re : Dunlop and 1988 (33) ELT 129 Sawran Paris Rhone.3. In his reply, the learned counsel f...
Himson Textiles Engg. Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT124aTriDel
1. The claim in this appeal is with reference to the duty concession contained in Customs Notification No. 179/80, dated 4-9-1980. It appears that 11 pieces of CAM imported by the appellants were not covered by the duty exemption certificate required to be produced before the Customs authorities in terms of the said notification.Because of this, the goods were charged to Customs duty without the benefit of the said notification. It is seen from the Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Collector that the appellants had produced before him the certificate of consumption of the goods for the manufacture of crimping machine. In appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), by his impugned order dated 3-4-1984, did not accept the amended duty exemption certificate which covered the subject 11 pieces of CAM on the ground that the benefit of exemption was admissible only to the extent the certificate produced at the time of import and clearance of the goods covered the goods.2. We have he...
Ceramic and Artware Unit Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT693TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal relates to the claim put forward by the appellants, M/s. Ceramic and Artware Unit, for exemption from duty in respect of candles manufactured by them for use in water filters. They claim exemption under Notification 104/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. The Assistant Collector under his order dated 26-7-1983 held that the appellants were entitled to the exemption claimed. On appeal therefrom the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 16-12-1983 denied the claim for exemption and allowed the appeal, restricting the claim for duty to the normal period of six months. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri M.L. Routh, Consultant for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty for the department.3. Sl. No. 30 of Notification 104/82 reads "candles". Admittedly the subject goods (filter candles used in water filters) are classifiable under Item 68-CET. The question is whether they are entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification 104/82 under Sl...
Killick Slotted Angels Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC42Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these 8 appeals. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The appellants, M/s. Killick Slotted Angles Limited, manufactured constructional units under the brand name 'Dexion'. They sold the entire out-put to M/s. Killick Nixon Limited whom they appointed as their sole-selling agents for the whole of India. The appellants gave them 2096 discount over the listed prices. The sole-selling agents retained 6.5% discount and passed on the remaining 13.5% to their customers. The point of dispute in these 8 appeals is as to which sale price should form the basis of assessment for central excise duty - whether the appellants' sale price to the sole-selling agents or the sole selling agents' sale price to their customers. The period of dispute is from October, 1974 to 9th March, 1976.3. The lower authorities have held that since the entire out-put of the appellants' goods was sold to the sole-selling agents and the sol...
Bannett Coleman and Co. Ltd. Vs. the Presiding Officer and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT101; 1988(15)DRJ1; 1988RLR322
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the management is directed against the order dated 8-10-1987 passed by the Labour Court whereby the application of the management requesting for adducing additional evidence if domestic inquiry is found to be vitiated, was dismissed. The application was dismissed on the ground that either the plea for additional evidence should have been taken in the written statement or an Explanationn for delay should have been furnished in the application itself and in the absence of the same, no permission could be granted. (2) The industrial dispute having arisen between the respondent- workman and the petitioner-management, the same was referred to the Labour Court by Delhi Administration on 13-6-1983. The statement of claim was filed by the workman on 26-7-1983. The management filed us written statement on 8-9-1983. Rejoinder was filed on 23-9-1983. Thereafter the documents were filed and the issue in terms of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›