Delhi Court November 1995 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.
M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT173TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of the refund claims, the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Shortly put the facts of the case are that the appellants are the manufacturer of B.O.P.P. (Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene) Film falling under Tariff Item 39.20. This product is a flexible plastic film used for packing and known in the Trade as packing material for foodstuffs etc. They filed two refund claims for the duty paid by them for the printing charges incurred on the BOPP films during 1-3-1986 to 31-5-1987 and 1-6-1987 to 30-9-1987 on the ground that the said BOPP [film] falls under Chapter 49 and therefore, the duty paid on the printing charges was paid erroneously and hence the refund claim.2A. When the case was called, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. However, they have requested for a decision on merits in their absence. Accordingly, we have perused the record and heard Shri J.M. Sharma, learned JDR.3. The Collector (Appeals) while rejecting the conten...
Mysore Wire and Metal Industries Vs. Commr. of Cus.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT231TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras dated 15-4-1987. By this order the Collector (Appeals) has upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Division No. II, Bangalore rejecting the application made by appellants herein for relief and refund of duty paid oh Copper rods in terms of Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Consultant Shri R.Subramanian appearing for the appellants submitted that the claim has been rejected on the ground that the requirement of Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not complied with by the appellant. He assailed the reasoning of the lower authority by pointing out that the clearing Agent had approached the Assistant Collector of Customs at Bombay to assess the damage caused to the goods at the port of entry itself. The affidavit dated 23-7-1983 filed in this case was referred to. Since the goods were to be bonded warehousing Bill of Entry was filed and the goods allowed to ...
Collector of C Ex. Vs. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: (1999)(108)ELT810TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Deptt. against the Order-in-Original dated 23-4-1984 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The issue relates to determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The point to be considered in this case is the goods manufactured by the respondents - M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. with the brand name of M/s. Bajaj Electricals, Bombay are to be assessed at the price at which they are sold to the customers by M/s.Bajaj Electricals as per the contract price entered into between the two. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise has observed that M/s.Mysore Lamps Ltd. have entered into an agreement with M/s. Bajaj Electricals. Accordingly they affixed the brand name "Bajaj". As such assessable value be determined basing on the price list filed by M/s.Bajaj Electricals Ltd., to their customers. On the other hand, the Collector (Appeals) while allowing the appeal filed by the party observed that the simple marking of Bran...
Satyawati Bhalla and anr. Vs. Aruna Prabha Khanna and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1995
Reported in: 61(1996)DLT142
N.G. Nandi, J.(1) In the suit challenging the Will dated 6th May, 1982 by Ms. Bimla Devi on the ground of coercion, undue influence and fraud and on that basis, the relief of declaration that the Will dated 6th May, 1982 is void, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a further declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the entire assets, movable and immovable, of the deceased Ms. Bimla Devi and consequential relief of injunction, seeking to restrain the defendants from acting on the basis of the Will dated 6th May, 1982, besides other prayers, the plaintiffs, by this application seek to restrain the defendants in identical terms and also from Realizing the rents or income from the American Embassy, alienating, encumbering and or otherwise dealing with the movable and immovable properties of deceased Ms. Bimla Devi situated at 3/23, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi and also the moveable properties including the FDRs, bank accounts pending the hearing and disposal of the ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Makhecha Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (2002)(146)ELT608TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against order-in-appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras.2. We have heard Shri Vijay Singh, Id. JDR on behalf of the Revenue.The point to be considered in this case is whether removal of excisable goods to consignment agents for sale could be treated as sale to such consignment agents and if so, whether the assessable value of such consignments removed to consignment agents is determined with reference to the price at which the consignment agents sold such consignments to the buyer. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that there is no factual finding made by the lower authority whether removals to various consignment agents were removals by way of sale or removals by way of stock transfer with instructions to consignment agents to sell the goods on behalf of the party. He observed that the consignment agents are only agents of appellants who sold the goods at the best available price and remitted the sale proceed...
Collector of Customs Vs. Wasan and Company
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT106TriDel
1. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the machine imported which was complete Super/Quick 18, Toggling and drying machine with 1500 Automatic toggles was covered by exemption Notification No.42/78-Cus., dated 1-3-1978 which provided exemption to Automatic Drying Machines (S. No. 6 of the table annexed to the said notification as amended). The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay had held goods in question as ineligible for exemption under the said notification on the ground that in addition to drying, the machines were used for toggling, drying as well as cooling. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had, however, held that the goods in question were eligible for exemption and he had relied upon the certificate from the Small Industries Services Institute and the ISI Specification.2. We have heard Shri P.K. Jain, ld. SDR for the appellant - Revenue and Shri R. Subramanian, Advocate for the respondents. It has been admitted by both the sides that the primary function...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Kesavardhini Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)(81)ELT527TriDel
1. The above captioned appeals involving common issue were heard together. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order.2.1 The respondents M/s. Kesvardhini Products, Madras manufactured the product called Keshvardhini Concentrate which is diluted with other vegetable oils before use on the hairs. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise vide his order before use on the hairs. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise vide his order dated 13-8-1985 classified the product namely Kesvardhini Concentrate under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff modifying the classification list approved on 7-5-1976 by his predecessor. The respondents preferred a refund claim based on the order dated 13-8-1985 passed by the Assistant Collector for an amount of Rs. 12,56,447-61 for the period 14-6-1976 to 26-8-1985 claiming that they had paid duty under protest. A show cause notice dated 26-9-1986 was issued by the Assistant Collector proposing to classify the product namely/ ...
Liberty Footwear Co. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT243TriDel
1. The dispute in all these appeals is that sizes of Zip Fasteners imported against Advance Licences (DEEC) procured under the scheme of production programme (prevalent during the Import Policy period 1990-93) according to provisions of Para 238(1) of the Policy do not tally with the sizes of zips used in exports. Further, in the last appeal viz. C/53/92-NB there is also another dispute that the quantity of artificial furlining imported and used as lining in the leather footwear Uppers exported was not mentioned in the Shipping Bills.2. We have heard Shri R. Subramanian, learned Advocate and Shri J.Singh, learned JDR.3. The relevant details of imports and exports, duty demanded and penalty imposed are furnished below :_________________________________________________________________________________S. No. Appeal No. Licence No. DEEC Book No._________________________________________________________________________________1. 2. 3. 4._______________________________________________________...
State Bank of India Vs. Samneel Engineering Company and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: 1995(35)DRJ485
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) The review application under consideration raises an important question as to the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal to hear, try and dispose of the mortgage suits. (2) The plaintiff bank has instituted a civil suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,53,60,063.41 with costs and interest against the defendants. There are several transactions between the parties. One of them is a mortgage by deposit of title deeds with the plaintiff bank securing the advance made by the plaintiff to the defendants enumerated in the plaint, the deposit of title deeds having been made with the intention of creating an equitable mortgage in favor of the plaintiff bank. The suit is styled as one under Order 34 Civil Procedure Code seeking relief of the sale of mortgage property and hypothecated goods as also a money decree for the recovery of the suit amount. (3) On 1.5.95, this court directed the records of the suit to be transmitted to the Debt Recovery Tribunal on the ground that t...
Capital Co-operative Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Co-operati ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-27-1995
Reported in: 1995IVAD(Delhi)907; 1995(35)DRJ552
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) An order dated 6th December, 1994 (Annexure- K) under Section 59 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 made by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies New Delhi, appointing an inquiry officer to fix liability, and a notice to show cause why the petitioner society be not superseded under section 32 of the Act ( Annexure-N) are under challenge.(2) The petitioner No.1 is a co-operative industrial society. The petitioner No.2 is the Secretary thereof. It is not disputed that the society is indebted to two institutions, namely, the Delhi State Cooperative Bank and the Khadi Village Industries Commission.(3) It appears that an inquiry was conducted into the working of the society and the inquiry officer pointed out the following four defects in the working of the society : (I)SOCIETYhas sold out a piece of land measuring 2767 sq yards without the approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies; (ii)Society is getting Rs. 6,000.00 per mensem by letting out th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »