Delhi Court February 1991 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 Customs Vs. Fertility Clinic
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC62Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the eligibility of "Follicle Aspiration Set "imported by the respondents herein to the benefit of Exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 (under Sl. No. 32 of Part B of the Schedule - covering Suction Catheters). The Assistant Collector assessed the goods without the benefit of the Notification holding that the item imported is not a suction catheter. The lower Appellate Authority reversed the order of the adjudicating authority and extended the benefit of the notification to the importers. Hence this appeal by the Department.2. We have heard Shri M. Jayaraman, the learned SDR and Dr. N.Kantawala, the learned Advocate for the respondents.3. The item imported is a Follicle Aspiration Set described in the catalogue as for use for Laparoscopic or ultrasound guided puncture (transvaginal/perurethral). The apparatus consisted of (i) puncturing needle (ii) Teflon tubing (iii) Silicone rubber cork (iv) Needle for connecti...
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1992)(60)ELT479TriDel
1. This is an appeal preferred against the order-in-original No.19/CE/ADC/87 dated 29-1-1988 passed by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Chandigarh.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Soap falling under subheading 3401.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have been availing benefit of Modvat credit in respect of various soap compounds used as input in the manufacture of soap by filing declaration under Rule 57(G). The appellants were charged with the contravention of Rules 57(F)(i), 57G(3)(i) and 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the ground that quantity of 1472.500 Kgs. of Soap compound was found lying in excess of the recorded balance in RG-23A Part-I in their store room though the Modvat had already been availed of on this quantity. The Additional Collector who adjudicated the proceedings observed that the goods found over and above the recorded balance were not to be used as inputs in the manufacture of soap but were likely to...
Bhor Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC149Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is similar to the one in E/Appeal No. 4609/89-C - Anand Polyrotex v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - which was disposed of by Order No. 110/91-C, dated 21-1-91. The Revenue had relied on the provisions of Central Excise Rule, 57F(4)(a) to charge duty on the waste arising during the manufacture of polyethylene film out of duty-paid raw materials. In the aforesaid order the Tribunal held that the said rule by itself was not an authority for charging duty but permitted charging of duty if the waste was otherwise dutiable according to the Tariff and any relevant exemption notification. It was held that waste of plastic arising in the course of manufacture of polyethylene film out of duty-paid raw materials, covered by Chapter 39 of the Tariff Schedule, would not be chargeable to duty. While Shri J.M. Patel, Counsel for the appellant, relied on this order, Shri Jayaraman, SDR, reiterates the Department's contention as discu...
Paras Food Products Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT490
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) Rule D.B. (2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 9th March 1990 whereby the Assistant Commissioner (Factories), Licensing Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has revoked the Municipal license of the petitioner. (3) The petitioner had been granted alicense for the manufacture of Ice Cream. A show cause notice dated 23rd January, 1990 was issued to the petitioner contending that the petitioner had been running the trade of manufacture of Desi Ghee and milk powder instead of the trade which was sanctioned. The petitioner was required to show cause within two weeks as to why the license be not cancelled. (4) Just prior to the expiry of the period of two weeks, on 6th February 1990 the petitioner wrote to the respondents to the effect that either the respondent should grant the petitioner some more time to file the reply or the petitioner should be permitted to personally explain its case. Thereafter the petitioner received a communicat...
Matsaya Metal Udyog (P) Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Desu)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT13
N.N. Goswamy, J. (1) This batch of writ petitions is by the petitioners who are covered by the category of Large Industrial Power as each one of them has a sanctioned load of mare than l00 K.W. The petitioners have set up installed furnaces for the manufacture of casting and for their factories in Delhi. These furnaces have been set up after having obtained valid licenses from the respondent Corporation. For the levy of charges for the supply of electricity there are two systems of tarrif which are followed; one is the flat rate system and the other is known as two part tarrif system. The flat rate is charged on the units of energy consumed while the later system is meant for big consumers of electricity like the petitioners and is comprised of two charges-one minimum consumption guarantee charges, called demand charges and (2) energy charges for the actual amount of energy consumed. It is the later system, that is, two part tariff system which is applicable to the petitioners who are ...
Adel Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC256Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30-10-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Goa. The facts leading to the appeal are that the appellants are manufacturers of P or P Medicines falling under T.I. 14E of Central Excise Tariff. They also manufactured Calcium Panthothenate Tablets U.S.P. which had been indicated by them in the classification list for 1984-85 claiming exemption under Notification 234/82 as pharmacopeial product under T.I.68 on the ground that the product did not bear any brand name or any other mark such as symbol or monogram which is used in relation to that medicine for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the medicine and the owner or user of the name or mark.On 30-9-1985, the Central Excise Officers, during their visit to the appellants' factory, verified the product 'Calcium Pantothenate'. They found that the samples of the product found in the premises did not mention any symbol or monogram on ...
Parke Davis India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC154Tri(Delhi)
1. Both these appeals are pertaining to common issue and are, therefore, taken up for disposal as per law.2. Appeal No. E/640/87-C is arising from Order-in-Original No.V:ADJ:(68)/15-86/58, dated 19-1-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise by which he has confirmed the Show Cause Notice, dated 27-9-1984 for recovery of Central Excise duty of Rs. 43,782.25 under the provisions of Section 11A on the ground that the product Potassium Mercuric Iodide Concentrated Solution (hereinafter called the product) is not entitled for exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 62/78, dated 1-3-1978 and amended Notification No.104/82, dated 28-2-1982 and Notification No. 197/82, dated 22-6-1982.The period covered in this show cause notice is 14-10-1983 to 10-1-1984.3. The appellants have filed Appeal No. 3696/87-C aggrieved by the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay passed in Order-in-Appeal No. M-277/BII-178/87, dated 10-6-1987 by which he has confirmed...
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC84Tri(Delhi)
1. By the present miscellaneous application the applicants have made a prayer for implementing the final order No. C/404 to 494/90-D dated 27th June, 1990. Shri A.K. Jain, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicants and stated that earlier the matter had come up for hearing on 17th January, 1991 and vide miscellaneous order No.23/91-D dated 17th January, 1991 the Bench had given one month's time to obtain information from the Collector whether any appeal has been filed and if so whether any stay has been granted or not. Thereafter, the matter had come up for hearing on 20th February, 1991 and the matter was adjourned for today. Shri Jain argued that the mere fact that the revenue has filed an appeal before a higher forum cannot justify the withholding of the refund unless a stay has been granted by the higher forum. In support of his argument, he has referred to the following judgments :- (1) (1990) 79 STC 38 (Madras High Court) Senthil Raja Metal v. Commercial Tax O...
Hind Filters (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC574Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufacture filter rods for cigarettes in which they use duty paid Acetone falling under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. On 17th March, 1983 they made an application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ujjain and requested for permission to avail of proforma credit of duty paid on Acetone received by them during the period from 4-6-1979 to 10-3-1983. They did not take this credit during the relevant period. The Assistant Collector rejected the request whereupon, by a letter dated 3rd May, 1983 addressed to the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, they came up with a request that the delay in filing the application may be condoned and permission may be granted to avail of the proforma credit from 4-6-1979 onwards. They stated that they did not apply earlier due to the fact that it was not brought to their notice by anybody that such facility was permissible. During the hearing before the Collector they placed reliance on sub-rule (2B) ...
Kuldip Kumar Wadhwa Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-1991
Reported in: 44(1991)DLT446
N.N. Goswamy, J.(1) This judgment will also dispose of C.W. 13/86 (Shri Anil Kumar v. Commissioner of Police and others) and C.W. 32/86 (Shri 0. P. Sahni v .Commissioner of Police and others), as all the petitions involve similar questions. (2) The petitioners in all the three petitions had applied for eating house/caberat shows licenses under the Regulations framed under Delhi Police Act. The challenge is to the Regulations for Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance of Public Amusement, 1980 as also to the Regulations for the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement (Amendment), 1983. The challenge is also to the orders passed by the Licensing Authority refusing to grant the licenses arid the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeals. In all the cases the licenses were refused mainly on the grounds that the premises were unsafe from fire safety and health and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »