Delhi Court June 1983 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.J. Woollens (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1187DTri(Delhi)
1. When this case was called for hearing on 29-6-83, no one represented the appellants. The appellants' letter dated nil, received on 27-6-83, was brought to our notice in which the appellants have requested that their appeal may be decided on the basis of their revision application (which on transfer to this Tribunal has been taken up as the subject appeal). The Bench, therefore, decided to take up the merits of the case.2. In this case, the appellants imported rubber aprons made of synthetic rubber. The Department assessed the goods as a manufacture of rubber under heading 40.05/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants' plea is that the rubber aprons are a part of the carding machine used in the woollen industry, that the rubber apron as such cannot be independently used except as a part of the carding machine, that, therefore, it is immaterial whether it is made of leather or rubber or of any material whatsoever and that accordingly it should be assessed under heading ...
Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-30-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1184DTri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the appellants imported rubber diaphragm of pressure cylinder for 8 colour printing machine for cotton textiles. The goods were assessed by the Department under heading 40.05/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as a rubber manufacture. The appellants seek their re-assessment at a lower rate under heading 84.40 on the ground that the goods were an essential part of the textile printing machine.During the hearing of the case before us on 28-6-1983, the appellants showed a sample of the subject rubber diaphragm, and explained its function with reference to the catalogue of the textile printing machine. They stated that the subject rubber diaphragm had been exclusively designed to perform a specific function in the said machine and had been given a definite shape and size for that purpose. They added that Note 3(c) to Chapter 40 of the CTA excluded "mechanical or electrical appliances or parts thereof (including electrical goods of all kinds), of hardened rubber, falli...
i.O.C. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-29-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1189DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a revision application (hereinafter called ''appeal") filed before the Central Government which under Section 131 B of the Customs Act, 1962, stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.2. The salient facts are that the appellants had a bonded tank in their Visakhapatnam installation in which they were storing non-duty paid furnace oil, indigenous as well as imported. Clearances of the oil from the bonded tank were taken from time to time, on payment of full. duty or after taking advantage of duty exemptions admissible in respect of furnace oil used for specified purposes. On 24.10.73 the appellants, according to the statutory accounts contained in their RG1 register, had a balance of 235 KL of indigenous oil and 1319 KL of imported oil in the tank (for convenience fractions of a KL are omitted). On 24.10.73 they filed a "provisional" Bill of Entry for the quantity of 1319 KL of imported oil for home consumptio...
Collector of Customs Vs. Wash Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1127DTri(Delhi)
1. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent imported two consignments of "class E other high temperature insulating paper". In both the cases, the goods were assessed under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and for the purpose of countervailing duty under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff on the ground that the goods consisted of presspahan paper board laminated with polyester film. Subsequently, the respondent made two refund applications contending that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 48 CTA read with Notification No. 37/78-Cus. In terms of this notification, electrical grade insulation paper and electrical grade insulation paper board falling under Chapter 48, were partially exempt from basic customs duty and there was full exemption from countervailing duty. The Asstt. Collector of Customs, however, closed both the refund claims and informed the respondent that since the assessment, of E class insulating paper was under consideration of the...
Collector of Customs Vs. Dr. D.D. Tanna
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1344DTri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the respondent, Dr. Tanna, imported a consign ment of bone cement (Simplex RO). The goods were assessed @ 120% +20% AD+-40 % CVD as a Polymer under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Dr. Tanna did not agree to the assessment and filed a refund claim. The said claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the importer had not specified any heading under which refund was claimed. Dr. Tanna, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector. The Appellate Collector allowed the appeal and passed order for reassessment of the goods as medical appliances under heading 90.19 CTA which carried the lower rate of duty of 40%+ 5% AD.The Central Government felt that the order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector was not maintainable in law and accordingly issued the subject Show Cause Notice under the then Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to re-assess the goods under heading 30.04/05 CTA. When no reply to the Show...
Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1218DTri(Delhi)
1. This is a Misc. Petition filed by Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd., Bombay arising oat of an appeal CD (Bom) A.No. 19/83 under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant has submitted that the appeal filed was dismissed vide Order dated 26-4-1983 by mistake. The appeal on behalf of the appellant company was filed by Shri Deva Priya Mitra, Manager, Personnel and Administration. The said appeal was verified and signed by him and was filed on the 4th day of January, 1983. Shri Nadkarni, on behalf of the appellant has submitted before us that the appeal was dismissed through mistake. He has submitted that the grounds of appeal and memorandum of appeal was filed by an officer of the Company of the status of a Manager, Deva Priya Mitra, holding the Power of Attorney issued by the Company under Clause (25) of the Article 144 of the Articles of Association, to, inter alia file an appeal relating to Customs. He has further submitted that the statement of the grounds of appeal a...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Hukam Chand
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1983
Reported in: (1983)5ITD572(Delhi)
1. The appeal by the revenue and the cross-objection by the assessee, Hukam Chand (HUF), arising out of the order of the AAC, have been consolidated, heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. The year of the assessment involved is 1 971-72 for which the relevant valuation date is 31-3-1971.2. The WTO on the basis of the wealth-tax return filed by the assessee in addition to the net wealth returned for the year. (sic) added Rs. 2,74,500 being the amount due to the assessee-HUF from the bigger HUF of which Hukam Chand, the karta of the assessee-HUF, was a member, by observing as under : For the assessment year 1972-73 the assessee has shown the net amount due from Pt. Lila Ram as Rs. 2,74,500 (i.e., compensation payable Rs. 4,35,000 less amount adjusted by it: Lila Ram Rs. 1,60,500). This amount has not been shown during the period under assessment as it is stated that the actual amount was received in May 1972 by the assessee though the fam...
Sriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1983
Reported in: (1983)LC1227DTri(Delhi)
1. In this Appeal to the Central Board of Excise and Customs in terms of Sec. 35 (as it read at the relevant time), of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and transferred to the Tribunal pursuant to Sec. 35(F) of the Act, the questions that arise for consideration are- (a) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, as it read at the relevant time, was applicable to the issue of the show-cause notice for recovery of duty If not, was the show-cause notice dated 5-9-1980 barred by limitation (c) Did the show-cause notice dated 5-9-1980 abate in consequence of the repeal of Rule 10 and its re-enactment as Sec. 11 of the Act with effect from 17-11-1980 without providing for any saving of pending proceedings (d) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there has been a "manufacture" of the pistons in question, and if so, the process carried out by the Appellant came within the...
Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1983
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT1784TriDel
1. Vide our order dated 13-6-83 dismissing the appeal, we had indicated that a separate order would be issued. In pursuance of that order, the present detailed order is being issued.2. Originally preferred as a Revision Application before the Central Government, on transfer to the Tribunal, the matter is being treated as an appeal before the Tribunal and is being disposed of accordingly.3. The appellants are a composite mill and manufacture inter alia cotton yarn falling under TI 18-A GET and cotton fabrics falling under Item 19 CET. Further, the appellants captively consumed the cotton yarn in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. The appellants were served a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 14-3-77 for Rs. 1,30,046.40. This sum was demanded as being the differential duty on the ground that the yarn duty element paid by way of compounded duty ought to have been included in the assessable value of the cloth cleared by them during the period 16-3-76 to 28-2-77. The appellants represente...
Gujarat Machinery Manufactures Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1983
Reported in: (1983)(13)ELT1249TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was initially filed as a Revision Application before the Central Government which, on the constitution of this Tribunal has come to it on transfer under the provisions' of Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be disposed of by this Tribunal as if it were an appeal before it.2. The facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of a commodity called 'FRIT' and held for the purpose a Central Excise Licence in Form L-4 since 1975. The Appellants filed Classification List No. 2/80 on 5-5-1980 before the proper Officer of Excise, classifying the goods under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Act (CET, for short). The main raw materials used in the manufacture of 'FRIT' are quartz, borax, potassium nitrate, soda, zirconia, alumina, titanium dioxide, lithium carbonate, and cobalt oxide etc. The manufacturing process, briefly stated, is that the mixture of the above raw materials is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »