Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. ... vs A.V. Borkar, Superintendent, Central ... on 17 June, 1982

Guardian Plasticote Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 18 February, 1986

He further relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Devi Dayal Rolling and Refineries (P) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise (1983 E.L.T. 338) wherein it had been held that it is only in cases where there had been assessment that Rule 10 would apply. He contends that since there had been no assessment in the present instance it is only Rule 9 that would be applicable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Inarco Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1984

45. This explains the contents of page 13 of the technical data, printed by the appellants themselves, for the guidance, of their consumers. It is apparent that bevelling of edges is one of the essential requirements for the 'Cots' which the General Manager (Operations) explained, was needed for smooth operation. It thus becomes obvious that this bevelling or chamferring or buffing is essential operation before the 'Cots' are* put into use in the machinery, and this is carried out after cutting into specified lengths. We, therefore, do not find it possible to sustain the contention that 'Aprons' and 'Cots' are nothing but tubings and pipings converted into shorter lengths as we find on reference to the IS specifications and even technical data of the appellants and the facts set out-in the appeal that they are objects having a different trade name, character and usage, and thus even on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the authorities cited on behalf of the appellants, these have to be treated as manufactured products.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 27 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Rishi Enterprises vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 November, 1983

in Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ay. Borkar, Superintendent, Central Excise, holding that rule 10 would apply only if a demand notice is issued after assessment, laying further stress that provisions of rule 9(2) were not confined to cases of clandestine removal, and that in cases where there were no assessment, rule 9(2) would apply.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

United Trading Agency vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 13 December, 1995

6. It was further contended that, taking into consideration the effect of the Drugs Act and ISI (Specification of Marks) Act, 1952, by virtue of rule 150A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 reads with section 27A of the Drugs Act, the manufacturers are manufacturing cosmetics firstly without a licence and secondly not in conformity with the ISI specifications. The manufacturer had approached the Indian Standard Institute for having a ISI mark to its products. The technical committee for cosmetics examined the matter and opined that the three products in question are not cosmetics being ayurvedic drugs or medicines. Under the Drugs Act, the products in question have been recognised as ayurvedic products alone and not cosmetics and experts under the ISI Act have endorsed this opinion. Therefore, the sales tax authorities cannot propose to take a stand unsupported by any legal or factual foundation and in the absence of any material to dispel this material produced by the appellant to reach the conclusion that these products are not ayurvedic drugs or medicines but toiletry items. It was submitted that it is a settled proposition that views and opinions of the Sectional Committees of the ISI need to be accepted in view of the expertise possessed by them, unless there is strong evidence or any other reason to take contrary view and such material is not available in the present case. For this proposition, learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. , Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Limited v. Union of India (1980) ELT 679, Parry Confectionery Ltd., Madras v. Government of India (1980) ELT 468, Devidayal Rolling & Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. A. V. Borkar, Superintendent, Central Excise (1983) ELT 338 and Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India .
Karnataka High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 7 - B Padmaraj - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Southern Magnetics (P) Ltd. on 3 September, 1987

3. Appearing for the appellant-Collector the learned departmental representative Shri Vadivelu pointed out that the Supdt's. letter clearly puts them on notice only about their duty liability and they should have started paying duty immediately. He cited the case law reported in the case of 'Devi Dayal Rolling and Refineries P. Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise and Ors. 1983 ELT 338 (Bom) and Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment in the case of 'Gwalior Rayon Manufacturing (Weaving) Co. v. Union of India' reported in 1982 ELT 844 (MP) : 1982 ECR 722D in support of the argument that the letter issued by the Supdt. could be taken as a valid show cause notice which was issued within the period of six months in the instant case and hence the demand is not time-barred. It was only in order to adhere to the principles of natural justice that a proper show cause notice was issued on 4.9.1984, exactly quantifying the amount of demand of duty to be paid. It was in furtherance of Supdt's. letter dated 23.5.1983 advising the party to pay the duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hindustan Equipment Engg. Co. vs Collector Of Customs on 17 May, 1988

In the case of Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd. v. A.V. Borkar, 1983 ELT 338 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that even the notice does not describe it as a show cause notice, but the contents thereof makes the recipient aware and conscious of the position, he cannot be permitted to raise a technical argument that a notice was bad in law.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next