Delhi Court January 1995 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1995 Page 6 of about 158 results (0.017 seconds)Vishal Malleable Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(76)ELT590TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30-4-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of "Malleable iron castings" falling under Tariff Item 25(16) of the Central Excise Tariff. They were issued a Central Excise Licence in form L-4 and in respect of their products they were availing exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 74/62 dated 24-4-1962 as amended by Notification No. 119/64, dated 27-6-1964 and Notification No. 208/83 dated 1-3-1983. The appellants were also manufacturing "Pipe fittings" falling under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff which were being cleared on payment of duty under Tariff Item 68. The appellants were clearing certain articles bearing specific names such as T.C. Caps, Top-mast, Socket tongue, and Bearing Shells under Tariff Item 25 along with other goods as "iron castings" without payment of duty. The Castings of T.C. Caps, Top-mast, Socket tongue, and Bearing Shells were sent t...
Tag this Judgment!Veneer Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT157TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 23-11-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellants are manufacturers of plywood. They imported a consignment of "Peeling Knives" designed for use exclusively with wood peeling machine. The 'knives' in question were declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry as classifiable under sub-heading 8208.20 read with Notification No. 59/87 dated 1-3-1987. The customs authorities modified the declaration and classified the "peeling knives" under sub-heading 9806 as "parts of machinery, equipments, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapter 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90". The 'knives' in question were assessed to basic duty at 100% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty at 45% and additional duty at 15% ad valorem. After clearance of the goods the appellants filed a refund claim on the grounds that "wood peeling knives" were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8208.20 and chargeable to basic duty at 85% ad valorem with auxi...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Unik Springs (i)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT407TriDel
1. This appeal by Revenue arises out of Order-in-Appeal No.394-CE/DLH/91, dated 27-3-1991 of Collector (Appeals) New Delhi.2. The appellant Revenue seeks relief on the ground that Collector (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that letter of protest was delivered to Supdt. and not to Asstt. Collector who in terms of Trade Notice No.34/CE/87 is Asstt. Collector for the purpose of Section 11B.3. Learned DR submitted that the letter of protest ought to have been filed to Asstt. Collector and not to Supdt. and therefore Collector (Appeals) had erred in upholding Order of Asstt. Collector granting such refund which have been paid under protest which would not attract limitation period.4. Learned Consultant for the respondents submitted that provisions of Rule 233B are directory and not mandatory and right of refund cannot be denied on a mere technicality. He cited the following Case Laws in support of his contention: (1) In case of Indian Pistons Ltd. v. CCE - reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Eswarana and Sons Engg. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC19Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the respondents M/s. Eswarana & Sons Engg. Ltd., Madras, are engaged in the manufacture of Control Panels Switch Gears, Air-circuit Brakers and Oil Circuit Brakers and had been paying duty under erstwhile Tariff Item 68.However, a study of the manufacturing process revealed that the respondents inter alia manufacture Hexagonal Head Brass Connection Nuts and Box Spanner Handles. According to the Revenue, the Hexagonal Head Brass Connection Nuts which is used in the assembly of Oil Circuit Braker has the fastening function and hence is to be classified under Tariff Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff and the Box Spanner Handles which is used in the Air Circuit Brakers under Tariff Item 51-A(i) as the Box Spanner Handles is nothing but Hand Tool. On this study of the manufacturing process, the Department formed...
Tag this Judgment!Rishi Electronics Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)53ITD10(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi dated 19th September, 1991. The main ground of appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 10,000 on account of unproved share subscription. The assessee has further challenged disallowance of lease rent (Rs. 1,53,767), interest (Rs. 16,880), staff welfare expenses (Rs. 16,655), depreciation on carbonising plant (Rs. 55,000) and addition from undisclosed sources (Rs. 86,050). The main ground of appeal is directed against the following observations of the learned CIT (A): The next ground of appeal relates to addition of Rs. 10 lacs representing subscription to preference share which is held as income from undisclosed sources by the officer. The officer has discussed in detail the reason for making the addition from page 2 to page 7 of the assessment order. The officer has made the addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to produce the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhartu Vs. Indian Express Newspapers and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1995(32)DRJ246
Jaspal Singh, J. (1) On June 7, 1987, the Jansatta, a daily newspaper published a news item in Hindi. The plaintiff has provided its translation which reads as under: 'THE Priest Kills PREM' (By Jansatta Correspondent). New Delhi, 1st June. The Priest Baba Mangal Nath of Ram Johri Mandir in village Palam is absconding after murdering Prem Sarup. He killed him with the help of his vagabonds and anti-social persons. The body was thrown in the drain. Shri Parkash Chander General Secretary Yuvak Vikas Kendra has leveled the charges. He has charged the Baba/Jogi that he was selling Smack and other drugs in the Temple and he was accused of several offences. Shri Chandra stated that Baba Mangal Nath through his disciple Bhartu, Namberdar summoned Prem Sarup @ Premi to his house. When he reached the temple the Baba told him that whosoever did not obey him faces the consequences. The allegations are that the Baba and his stooges thereafter gave severe beatings to the said Premi with sticks and ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhote Lal and ors. Vs. Government of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT542
K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. (1) The petitioners were appointed as Research Associates in terms of a scheme formulated by Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch. The scheme is referred as 'General Guidelines for the formulation,processing, scrutiny, sanction, implementation and evaluation of research schemes to be financed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research from its agricultural produce cess funds. Para 16 of this scheme states that 'a Research Associate shall be selected by a Selection Committee to be constituted by the Principal Investigator or the University/Institution in accordance with Rules in existence there, or by the Management Committee in case of ICAR institute. The appointment will not be a regular employment, but restricted in the duration of the project/scheme'.(2) Initially the petitioners were appointed somewhere in the year 1986 and1987. There were similar other appointees as well at different places. When there was a proposal or actual action terminating the ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Tirath Sharma and anr. Vs. the Administrator and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 57(1995)DLT725; 1995(32)DRJ277
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the notification dated 25.2.1980 issued by respondent I and the orders dated 1.1.92 and 29.5.92 appointing respondent 5 as Vice Principal and subsequently as Principal and the order dated 21.7.92 appointing respondent 6 as Vice Principal and for further directions to the respondents for appointing the petitioners to the post of Principal and Vice Principal respectively. (2) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have been working with M.B.D.A.V. Sr. Secondary School, Usaf Sarai, New Delhi as Post Graduate Teachers (for short PGTs) since the year 1965 and 1966 respectively. Earlier they had been working since 1958 and 1964 as language teachers before their promotion as PGTs. The petitioners further state that the constitution of respondent 3 which is the concerned school is controlled by respondents 1, 2 and 4 under Rule 59 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Vasant Ssk Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)(77)ELT174TriDel
1. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad has filed this appeal against the order of Collector, Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in his order had held:- "The above views are supported by the decision passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi vide their order No. 182/84-D, dated 11-4-1984 in the appeal No. ED(SB)405/79-D filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Kalambar Vibhag SSK Ltd., Gandhinagar. The ratio of this decision is equally applicable in the instant case where the appellants had filed a claim for rebate in terms of Notification No. 135/83-CE, dated 30-4-1983 for the period from 01-05-83 to 30-9-1983. Further, I have also decided the similar issues in the case of M/s Apte Amalgamation Ltd., and M/s. Krishna S.K.K. Ltd., vide this office order-in-appeal No. M-2755-2757/PN-190-192/84 (issued from file No. V-2(1)1975/83, V-2(1)847/84 and V-2(1)173/84 dated 4-2-1985, applying the ratio of the decision passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Dripless Faucets (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1995)LC567Tri(Delhi)
1. The eligibility of import of goods described as 'Headworks High Flow with Red Bottom made of Brass' under OGL arises for determination in this appeal - the appellants who are manufacturers of water taps/mixers week clearance of these goods as components/parts covered by Appendix 6, Serial No. 1 of the 1985-88 Import Export Policy while the department's contention is that the items are consumer goods falling under SI. No. 121 of Appendix 2B of the Policy requiring valid licence.2. The Adjudicating authority held that the items were finished goods required merely to be inserted inside the tap for use and are available in any sanitary shop, therefore, satisfying human needs directly and hence falling within the ambit of Appendix 2B, SI. No. 121. He therefore, confiscated the goods in the absence of licence to cover the same with an option of redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10,0007- on the appellants herein.3. The lower Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!