Delhi Court July 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 9 of about 91 results (0.021 seconds)Sandoz (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC303
1. This application has been filed under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, praying that clarifications as set out therein be issued in relation to the captioned order.2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this application are that the applicants, engaged in the manufacture of synthetic organic dyestuffs ("S.O. Dye-stuffs", for short) had been enjoying the benefit of central excise Notification No. 103/61 dated 20-4-1961. The notification exempted S.O. Dyestuffs manufactured wholly or partly out of imported intermediates from the payment of so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as was equivalent to the amount of countervailing customs duty paid on such imported intermediates. This notification was amended on 19-6-1980 by Notification No. 109/80 providing that in relation to the exemption, the procedure set out in Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, be followed. In the meanwhile, Rule 56A had...
Tag this Judgment!Piyush Kumar Prabhudas Mehta Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC441
1. Since all the appeals arise out of a common impugned order, a common order is being passed.2.1 M/s. Alpha Dynamic Products Pvt. Ltd., an appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) are/were engaged in the manufacture of electric motors falling under T.I. 30 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 upto February 1986 and thereafter under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985.2.2 On the basis of an intelligence, the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of the assessee on 12-3-1987 for checks.On enquiry it was found by the officers that the assessee had filed classification lists and price lists from time to time with the proper officer in respect of the aforesaid goods and that they were clearing the said goods on payment of central excise duty according to the value declared in the price lists. Further probe, however, revealed that after clearing the said electric motors from the factory, they wer...
Tag this Judgment!Venus Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC79Tri(Delhi)
1. The point for determination in the above appeal is the eligibility of the appellants to the benefit of the concessional rate of 75% duty under Notification 128/77 dated 18-6-1977 which would be available if the installed capacity of the appellants factory did not exceed 2.000/- metric tonnes per annum.2. The appellants manufacture various varieties of papers in their factory at Faridabad. On 18-6-1977 they submitted a classification list in which they declared that the installed capacity of their factory was below 2,000 metric tonnes per annum and therefore they claimed 75% concessional duty under Notification 128/77 dated 18-6-1977. During the course of investigation into the correctness of the declaration of installed capacity, certain records and documents obtained from the factory premises revealed actual installed capacity was more than 2,000 metric tonnes per annum.3. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory on 15-4-1981 and verified and recorded the width of Deckle, s...
Tag this Judgment!N.K. Srivastava Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 43(1991)DLT64; [1991(62)FLR449]
S.B. Wad, J. (1) The petitioner was appointed Assistant Labour Welfare officer in June 1977 on ad hoc basic. According to him no regular Dpc met. till 1981. It is an admitted position that the Dpc met in 1981 for regular appointments to the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. The Dpc made the selection on the basis of merit and the petitioner was placed at No. 7. Although there were several regular posts, the petitioner was not given the regular appointment but was asked to continue on ad hoc basis. The petitioner made various representations and also filed a civil suit. According to him the respondents assured him of a regular promotion and on that promise he withdrew the civil suit. However, nothing happened till 1986. On 2.4.86 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Labour Welfare Officer on regular basis with effect from 10.4.81, i.e. the original date fixed by the Dpc and from which date some of the respondents were promoted. Thereafter he was due for promotion to the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC199
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the classification of the imported product "PARATAC" petroleum additive, imported by the appellants from M/S Exxon Chemical International Supply S.A. in September 1981. The importers claimed classification under Tariff Heading 38.01/19(3) which covers "Anti-knock preparation and prepared additives for mineral oils". However the goods were assessed to duty under Tariff Heading 39.01/06 and the importers paid duty at the higher rate under protest, and subsequently claimed refund, which claim was rejected. On appeal, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay, remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration on the ground that the technical literature described "PARATAC" as an oil solution of high molecular weight - 180 Butylene Polymer, which was insufficient to arrive at the classification since Heading 39.01/06 covered solution of polymer product also. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Hardilla Chemicals Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC180
1. Both appeals arise out of a common order and arc hence being heard and disposed of together, by this order.2. The eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification 118/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 is the disputed issue in these appeals. The appellants, who are licensed to manufacture various chemicals, receive 2 - Ethyl Hexanol from M/S National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd., (NOCIL for short) and convert it into Phthalic Anhydride which in turn is used by them as raw material in the manufacture of Dioctyl Phthalate. Both the above products i.e Phthalic anhydride and dioctyl phthalate fell under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff during the relevant time. The benefit of exemption under Notification 118/75 was denied to the appellants on the ground that the finished product namely Dioctyl Phthalate was being manufactured on job work basis for NOCIL and not manufactured for the same manufacturer i.e. the appellants. The scheme of Rule 56-C (under which N...
Tag this Judgment!New Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Shanti Brothers Jewellers
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT490; 1991(20)DRJ6
Mahesh Chandra, J.(1) The respondent-plaintiff M/s. Shanti Brothers Jewellers received a Bill No. 377' dated 13th August, 1968 for payment of sum of Rs. 1000.00 as advertisement tax for 26th March, 1968 to 31st March. 1969 from the appellant-defendant N.D.M.C. and in consequence the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from levying, collecting or recovering the said advertisement tax and the said suit was decreed by Sbri R. P. Gupta, Sub Judge, Delhi vide his judgment and decree dated 28tb.0ctober, 1970 and the appeal of the N.D.M.C. before Additional District Judge was also dismissed vide judgment dated 30th November, 1972. Feeling aggrieved N.D.M.C. has filed this Regular Second Appeal. I have beard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the files and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings : (2) The contention of the plaintiff in the suit was that it was carrying on a...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Seth Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC211
1. The Department has preferred this appeal against the non-imposition of penalty on the importers by the Additional Collector of Customs, in the following background.2. The respondents herein imported a consignment of 120 bales declared to contain wool waste. Physical examination revealed that, out of 120 bales, only 20 bales contained wool waste while the remaining bales contained synthetic waste. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. However no penalty was levied upon the importers.3. The only issue that survives for consideration is whether the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the levy of penalty.4. We have heard Shri Jai Narayanan Nair, for the appellants and Shri K.L. Seth for the respondents.5. The learned DR contends that the allegation that the 20 bales containing wool waste were used to conceal the unauthorised import of synthetic waste establishes as mens rea on the part of the importers, justifying imposition of penalty. He refers to an order of th...
Tag this Judgment!Corporation Bank Vs. Bahri Exports and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: ILR1991Delhi627
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) The plaintiff, a bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 filed this suit on 18-10-1985 turn recovery of Rs. 1,86,290.80. There are four defendants. This claim is in the amended plaint and when the suit was originally instituted the claim was for an amount of Rs. 1,53,598.46. By amendment to the plaint the plaintiff was allowed to plead and claim an amount of Rs. 26,840.93 towards loss in the exchange rate. (2) Defendant No. I is a partnership firm of defendants 2 and 3.. Defendant No. 4 is a banking corporation in Barcelona Spain. This defendant No. 4 is the collecting bank as the term is normally understood. (3) The claim of the plaintiff is that defendants I to 3 were granted export bill discounted / purchase facility by the plaintiff and the defendants were allowed to avail the limit up to Rs. 1.50 lacs. For this purpose documents were documents by defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff discounted three bills of d...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Cements Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1990)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Diamond Cements Ltd., a Unit of Mysore Cements Ltd. Birlapur, P.O. Narsingarh, Damoh (M.P.) have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. Shri Kamal Parshurampuria, the learned Senior Advocate had appeared on behalf of the applicant and Shri M.S. Arora, the learned JDR for the respondent.2. At the outset of the hearing, Shri Arora, JDR had raised a preliminary objection that no valuation or rate of duty is involved and jurisdiction vests with the regional bench. Shri Kamal Parshurampuria, the learned senior advocate in reply stated that the jurisdiction vests with the special bench as classification was in dispute and he has filed an application for the grant of necessary permission for the raising of the additional ground of appeal No. (xxv). Shri Kamal Parshurampuria, the learned advocate pleaded that the appellant may be granted permission to raise this additional ground of appeal otherwise the appellant will suff...
Tag this Judgment!