Delhi Court August 1996 Judgments

Mine Safety Appliances Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT258TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Mine Safety Appliances Ltd., against the order-in-original dated 12-2-1986 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta.2. When the matter was posted for hearing none appeared on behalf of the appellants. On going through the record, we find that matter can be disposed of even in the absence of the party. Accordingly, we proceed to pass this order after hearing Shri G.D. Sharma, learned JDR, for the Revenue.3. The appellants have imported consignments of "Respirator Cartridge Assembly". They claimed assessment under Heading 90.17/18 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was contended by them before the Adjudicating Authority that "Respirator Cartridge Assembly" is specially designed component part of 'self rescuer' breathing apparatus. As such assessment should be made under Heading 90.17/18 @ 60% + 40% C.V. 12%.It was also submitted by them that Respirator Cartridge Assembly is not merely a "Air Filter" but it purifies Carbon Monoxide with the help of Che...

Ashoka Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT160TriDel

1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the impugned order dated 18-7-1985 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri G. Shivadas submitted that dispute relates to clubbing of clearances effected by the other sister units.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Tariff Item 68 during the relevant period. It was charged that the appellants have manufactured Tariff Item 68 goods in their factory and also got manufactured Tariff Item 68 goods on supply of raw materials by them from their own sister concerns namely M/s. Ashoka Moulders Pvt.Ltd., and M/s. Ashok Engineering Works who were exclusively engaged for the manufacture of goods on behalf of the appellants. M/s. Ashoka Industries, Shri Shivadas submitted that M/s. Ashoka Moulders Pvt.Ltd., is a private Company which is all together different legal entity from the appellants. Similarly, Ashoka Engineering Works is an independent Partnership concer...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tubes and Bars

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(90)ELT64TriDel

1. The respondents, M/s. Tubes & Bars are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminium wires falling under the then sub-heading 76.04 during 10-6-1988 to 17-9-1988 and availed Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the same. The Modvat credit has been denied by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the respondents have not filed declaration of aluminium wires as final product under Rule 57G and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to the said Modvat credit. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the assessee filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who upheld the view taken by the Assistant Collector in rejecting the claim. Further, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal dated 18/25-7-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. The Tribunal observed that there was no allegation of facts. At the relevant time, there was no mention of time limi...

Snehanki Processors Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT721TriDel

1. The appellants manufactured P or P Foods and filed the Classification List claiming classification of PP Foods packed in tins and bottles under TI 1B and of similar goods sold in bulk under TI-68.The Assistant Collector classified all those products claimed to be by the assessee under TI-68, under Item 1B of Central Excise Tariff. The Collector upheld his order. Hence this appeal.2. The appellants have requested for disposal of the appeal on merits.In the Appeal Memorandum and in the written submissions later made, it was claimed that where the goods were sold in bulk containers or where those were sold in the appellants' own containers but were not in pre-determined quantities, they had sought classification under TI-68, on the basis of the Trade Notice No. 35/84, dated 15-6-1984 issued by the Jurisdictional Collector. The Assistant Collector had gone against the contents of the Trade Notice. The Assistant Collector had erred in giving a limited interpretation to the word "fruit j...

Noble (India) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(88)ELT500TriDel

1. The appellants filed this appeal against the order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Assistant Collector vide order dated 2-12-1993 held that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of full exemption under Notification No. 1/93 as they are availing Modvat credit benefit in respect of some other items. Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of room coolers affixed with brand names of others, plastic moulds, plastic moulded parts for TV and for room coolers. The appellants are eligible under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993. Hence they availed exemption in respect of plastic moulded parts for TV and room coolers, not claiming modvat on the inputs used in its manufacture. On the other hand, the appellants also cleared room coolers affixed with brand name of others on payment of duty on normal rate and availing credit of modvat on inputs used thereof. The ld. Counsel submitted that ...

Willard India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. Assessee, a public limited company, is a leading manufacturer of jute bags and automobile batteries. It has its manufacturing units located at Chittivalasa (Andhra Pradesh) and Sikandrabad (UP) respectively. Since common points are involved in the appeals for the assessee as well as the Department, we can conveniently dispose of these appeals by a common order.3. For asst. yr. 1984-85, Rs. 54,071 and Rs. 13,914 were debited towards expenses incurred on provisions, etc., purchased for Ocean View bungalow at Chittivalasa and staff holiday home at Puri. The AO asked the assessee to explain the nature of the expenditure. As regards the expenditure incurred over staff holiday home at Puri, the AO completely agreed with the contentions of the assessee. However, as regards expenses incurred for Ocean View bungalow at Chittivalasa (AP), the AO held that it was used as guest house and, therefore, expenses incurred thereon deserves to be disallowed under s. 37(4). In the letter of the assess...

Kumar Construction Co. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 64(1996)DLT553; 2003(39)DRJ467

Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) The arbitrator Shri K.D. Bali, Engineer Member, Dda, rendered his award on September 25, 1982 in regard to which an application has been made by the petitioner under sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act for making it a rule of the court, and objections have been filed by the first respondent for setting aside the same. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :- (2) The petitioner and the first respondent entered into an agreement dated February 6, 1988 by virtue of which the petitioner was to execute the work of construction, namely 'Convenient Shopping Centure' near multi-storeyed flats at East of Kailash, Pocket II. The stipulated dates of commencement of the work and the competition thereof were February 16, 1988 & August 15, 1988 respectively. It is not disputed by both the parties that the work was actually completed on November 2, 1989. The payment of the final bill was made to the petitioner on March 21, 1991. After the payment of the final bill, ...

Wesman Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)221; 64(1996)DLT247; 1996(39)DRJ21

Manmohan Sarin, J. (1) The petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 14,17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing of the original award Along with the arbitral proceedings and for making the award dated II- 6-1993, by Sh.K.D. Singh, Sole Arbitrator, rule of the Court. The petitioner also prays for award of interest @ 18% P.A. The learned Arbitrator has filed the award together with the record of the arbitral proceedings upon notice being issued by this Court. Notice of the filing of the award were issued to the parties. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the award. (2) The respondent-Union of India, has moved the present I.A. bearing No-6270/94, filing its objection Under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent on the basis of the objections filed pray for the award to be set aside viz, claim No. I of the award by the Arbitrator in favor of the petitioner and the rejection of counter claim of the respondents. (3) The pleadings in the ...

Tara Chand Vs. State Transport Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1996IVAD(Delhi)195; 63(1996)DLT816; 1996(38)DRJ529

Manmohan Sarin, J.(1) Petitioner No.l,a handicapped Ex-service man, invited disqualification as an applicant for the grant of Stage Carriage Permit because he innocently added the name of his wife. The name of his wife was added to meet an objection of the respondents that the Fdr furnished Along with the application was in joint names. (2) Aggrieved by the deletion of their name from the list of those granted Stage Carriage Permits, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. (3) Rule D.B. was issued on 10.08.1992, This petition was delinked from the batch matters vide orders dated 18.09.1995 and has been taken up for hearing and disposal. (4) Petitioner No. I, Ex-Sergeant Tara Chand, had been discharged from the Air Force after serving for approximately 20 years on ground of physical disability, on 15-5-1991. In January 1992, the State Transport Authority had formulated a Scheme for grant of 3000 permits to run private bus service in the Union Territory of Delhi, out of which 950 ...

Mahesh Kumar Garg Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1997IAD(Delhi)20; 64(1996)DLT232; 1996(39)DRJ814

Arun Kumar, J.(1) Petitioner Mahesh Kumar Garg addressed a letter dated 8th May, 1996 to the Chief Justice of this Court making an 'Appeal for Justice'. The said letter was treated as a Criminal Writ by an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 7th June, 1996. The petitioner alleged that his sister Geeta was married to Rajneesh Singhal in the year 1986. She died on 5th January, 1996 in a hospital. The grievances of the petitioner is that the death of his sister is a case of murder covered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the local police in connivance with the family of the in-laws of the petitioner's sister has converted the case into one of suicide. On the basis of a statement made by the petitioner, Fir was registered at the Police Station Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on 5th January, 1996 under Sections .498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code. A suicide note purportedly written by the deceased was made the basis of treating it to be a case of suicide. However, a...