Delhi Court December 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 1 of about 53 results (0.019 seconds)The Controller of Stores, Central Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC1079Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants have imported 'Steel Tyres' in unfinished conditions which were assessed under heading 63(28) of I.C.T. They claimed re-assessment under heading 74(3) of I.C.T. and consequential refund, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Appellate Collector of Customs as well.2. In the appeal, they have again reiterated that the goods in question should fall under item 74(3) of I.C.T. since the steel tyres imported by them are meant for carriage and wagons of the railways.3. S/Sh. D.S. Kulkarni and K.V. Krishnan appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that the total cost on finishing the articles for fitment and use on the carriages and wagons amounted to not more than 4.6% of the c.i.f. cost of the tyres. The machining cost of one tyre is around Rs. 45.68 and not Rs. 83.03, as accepted by the lower authorities. In any case, the total cost of machining and finishing the imported goods is insignificant compared to the c.i.f cost of the tyres. Accord...
Tag this Judgment!K. Mohan and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT430TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the orders of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, (Order No. C. 3/3001/ 80 dated 28-3-81) confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, the appellants are before us. The appellants have imported a consignment of 25 Nos. Eastman Model 629 Blue Streak II Straight Knife Cloth Cutting Machines. They claimed the classification under Tariff Heading 84.40(1) of Customs Tariff Act 1975 (hereinafter called the 'Act) with benefit of Notification No.41-Cus-178, dated 1-3-1978. The Assistant Collector of Customs in his order dated 9-7-1980 held that the goods imported were not automatic cloth cutting machines in the sense that various movements were coordinated by manual control. He also observed that the machine could come more appropriately under Tariff Heading 85.05 of the Act because the machine was a tool for working in the hand. Even assuming that the machine would come under the purview of heading 84.40, he held that the classification under 85...
Tag this Judgment!Arvico Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT413TriDel
1. This is a revision application preferred by M/s. Arvice Industries, Bombay against the Order-in-appeal No. 1014/1977 dated 15-9-1977, passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay which has been transferred to the Tribunal an 1 is now being considered as appeal, 2. The short point involved in this appeal relates to assessment of the following two items under Tariff Item 33C of the Central Excise Tariff: (ii) Stainless Steel Rectangular Beverage Jugs, electrically operated.The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay ordered that these two items should be assessed under T.I. 33 ibid and were snbjected to Central Excise Duty under Notification No. 33/69-C.E., dated 1-3-1969.He held that the item at SI. No. (1) above namely, Hot Cups, Electrically operated were nothing but Electric Kettles which are dutiable under. SI. No. 14. of the Schedule to the said Notification.He further held that Hot Beverage Jugs were Food Warming Cabinets and accordingly, were dutiable under ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Weaving and Industrial Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT443TriDel
1. This is a revision application filed before the Government of India which on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal. The revision was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 2622-C.E./77, dated 24-1-1978 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. He confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector Division I, Kanpur, in C. No. V-19(17) 154-Tech./77/14004, dated 2-9-1977. ' The appellants' unit manufacture cotton fabrics. According to them, the fabrics manufactured between 18-6-1977 and 14-7-1977 did not attract any duty in view of the Notification 134/77, dated 18-6-1977. The appellants have been requesting the authorities by several communications for approval of the classificat for list. There was a provisional classification on 7-7-1977 but the list was actually received on 13-7-1977. The appellants had to fulfil certain formalities like the execution of a bond, furnishing of bank guarantee, etc. They were unable to comply with them before 15-7-19...
Tag this Judgment!India Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT640TriDel
1. By the present bunch of three applications perporting to be under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Act), the appellants applicants (hereinafter applicants) requests that in respect of order Nos. 553, 554 and 55/1983, dated 22-6-1983, a statement of case be drawn up and questions of law set out in para-8 of the application referred to High Court.2. The applications were fixed for hearing today i.e., 27-12-1983, but none appeared for the applicants. A telegram was received from them requesting for adjournment or alternatively to consider and decide the applications on the merits of their submission.3. On behalf of the respondent-non-applicants, Sh. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Senior Departmental Representative raised an objection that the orders related among other things to the determination of a question having relation to the rate of excise duty and therefore the reference applications under Section 35-G of the Act are not maintainable.4. In these...
Tag this Judgment!Trackparts of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT98TriDel
1. M/s. Trackparts of India Limited have filed a Revision Application on 2nd June, 1977 against the Order-in-Appeal dated 11-3-77 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi. The Appellate Collector upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector under which the Crawler Tractor parts were classified under item, 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It was held that these parts would not qualify for being assessed under Item 34-A since they were not parts and accessories of motor vehicles and tractors. They were parts of Crawler Tractors which were not classifiable as motor vehicles under Item 34 of Central Excise Tariff. The Appellate Collector has stated that the Crawler Tractors are vehicles with Crawler Tract mounted equipment.These are not tractors which are adapted for use upon roads in accordance with the definition of motor vehicles stated in Item 34.Shri Satya Sheel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that although the Crawler Tr...
Tag this Judgment!General Electric Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT436TriDel
1. M/s General Electric Co., Calcutta has filed a Revision Application before the Government of India and it is the Board's Order-in-Appeal No. 169/B of 1981 dated 28th February, 1981 wherein the Board upheld the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 37.500/. The short point for decision in this case related to assessment of Central Excise duty.Main Starting Resisters assembled by the Appellants in the premises of M/s. Chittaranjan Locomotive Works under the supervision of their engineers and in accordance with the contract entered into by them with M/s. Chittaranjan Locomotive Works. The Appellants contend that some of the components required for assembling of the starting resistors were supplied by the C.L. Works and the Appellants procured the remaining components and assembled the finished product. They have also contended that the assembling of the final product was made with the help of less than ten labourers ...
Tag this Judgment!Aristrocraft Internal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT433TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally filed as Revision Application to the Government of India, is whether the Steam Press with 'portable boiler alongwith steam ironing and cleaning tables' imported by the appellants vide Bill of Entry No. 43/77, dated 25-7-1978 should be classified under sub-heading (1) of heading 84.40 of C.T.A., 1975, as claimed by the appellants or under sub-heading (2) of the same heading, as done by the lower authorities.2. At the hearing of the appeal, Shri J. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the appellants had imported Industrial Laundry and Dry-cleaning machinery. He submitted that sub-heading (2) of Heading 84.40 covers Domestic Washing machines, laundry and dry-cleaning machinery and not Industrial laundry and dry-cleaning machinery. The goods imported were therefore appropriately classifiable under Heading 84.40(1)'Not elsewhere specified'. Sh. Banerjee's argument, further, was that the word 'Domestic' used in sub...
Tag this Judgment!Vishwa Nath Pandey Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT404TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Govt. which, under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal and necessary for its disposal are : (a) On 12-5-69, Customs Officer searched the Appellant's residence and recovered 156 watches of foreign origin ; (b) An insured parcel addressed to Smt Pandey was got delivered to her at G.P.O., Lucknow. From the said parcel, Customs staff recovered, in the Divisional Office, Lucknow, 230 foreign watches ; (c) The aforesaid watches were seized by the Customs staff under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the reasonable belief that these had been imported into India in contravention of the prohibitions under the Import & Export Control Act read with Section 11 of the Act; (e) A show-cause notice dated 27-1-...
Tag this Judgment!Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT455TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 613/75 (HNR) dated 27-3-75 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras.This appeal was heard on 24-11-83 together with Appeal No. 34/75(c) and the same arguments were launched.2. Sirpur Paper Mills cleared a consignment of 2778.3 tegs, of white map-litho paper containing of rags of 90 gms. under gate pass No. 6708 dated 22-3-73 after paying duty under item 17(2) of Central Excise Tariff. By a letter dated 19-9-73 the manufacturers requested orders to reclassify this clearance on the Tariff Item 17(3) so as to enable them to claim refund of the excess amount paid by them under protest.3. The Assistant Collector says that the mere addition of the word "under protest' in the gate pass does not dispense with a need to give an intimation that the assessment was disputed. He also says that map-litho paper and higher grammage of 85 gsm or above was indistinguishable from cartridge paper.4. The reasoning of the Assistant Col...
Tag this Judgment!