Delhi Court September 1983 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1983 Page 7 of about 72 results (0.020 seconds)Sawant Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2030TriDel
1. This is a Revision application to the Government of India against Order-in-appeal No. S/49-679/81-Air & 5 others dated 26-9-1981, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, which stands transferred to this Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it.2. The appellants as actual users imported Nickel and Nickel Alloy as per B.E. Cash No. 2043 dated 23-5-1980. The goods were classified under Chapter 75 of the Customs Tariff and full duty realised from the Appellants. At the material time exemption Notification No.449/76-Cus., dated 16-12-1976 GSR 926(E) was in force under which Nickel powders and flakes falling within Chapter 75 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India were exempt from payment of duty as was in excess of 40% ad valorem. It appears that the appellants and the Department were both not aware of this notification. The appellants applied for refund of excess duty on 21-5-1981. The Assistant Collector of C...
Tag this Judgment!Abhushan Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)(14)ELT2010TriDel
1. Question for decision in this appeal originally filed as revision application the Government of India, is appropriate classification of Cloth Drilling Machine and Cloth Cutting Machine.2. The Appellants through their Customs House Agent M/s. Narayan Singh & Co. by Bill of Entry Cash No. 2020 dated 2-7-1979 ex-s.s. 'Vishva Amitabh' inter alia imported one Cloth Drilling Machine (item 2 of the Bill of Entry) and one Cloth Cutting Machine (item No. 3 of the B/E).Cloth Drilling Machine was classified under heading 82.05 and Cloth Cutting Machine under heading 84.60 (1) of CTA. It appears that on Cloth Cutting Machine additional duty (countervailing duty) was also realised.3. The appellants applied for reassessment of Cloth Drilling Machine under heading 84.40(1) and Cloth Cutting Machine without c.v.d. The Asst. Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order despatched on 27-7-1979 rejected the claim. The order was upheld in appeal by Shri M.G. Vaidya, Collector of Customs (Appeal), Bom...
Tag this Judgment!Cynamid India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(15)ELT186TriDel
1. Messrs. Cynamid India Ltd., have filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal No. A-293/BD-115/83 dated the 5th March, 1983, passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. In this case the goods in question, which have been described by the appellants as "animal feed products" were held to be assessable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff but as not covered by the expression "animal feed" in exemption notification No. 55/75, dated 1-3-1975 (as amended), and therefore not eligible for exemption in terms of that notification. The appellants have contested this finding and have submitted that the goods were in fact "animal feeds" and therefore entitled to the benefit of the exemption, 3. When the case was called for hearing on 13-7-1983, Shri Ganesh filed an application seeking to add the following additional ground of appeal : - "The Appellants submit that no excise duty can be levied at all on their Aurofac Products as there is no manufactur...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Antifriction Bearing
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1984)(16)ELT613TriDel
B.B. Gujral, Vice-President, S.D. Jha (J) and A.J.F. D' Souza (T), Members 1. The question for decision in Show Cause Notice F. No. 380/52/82-Cus.II, dated 22-7-1982 issued by the Govt. of India to the respondent (now transferred to the Tribunal to be diposed of as an appeal presented by the Collector of Customs, Bombay) is classification of Forged Rings for bearing races.2. The respondent imported certain consignments of Forged Rings for bearing races. At the time of import the respondent claimed classification of the goods under heading 73.33/40 read with Notification No. 254/76, dated 2-8-76 as steel castings and forgings.The appraising authorities, Asstt. Collector and Deputy Collector of Customs classified the goods vide orders dated 13-10-81 and 23-11-81 under heading 84.62 (3) of Customs Tariff Act as part of roller bearings. In appeal, the Appellate Collector of Customs by two separate orders dated 12-11-81 and 3-12-81 held the goods correctly classifiable under heading 73.15 ...
Tag this Judgment!Nehal International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1985)LC404Tri(Delhi)
1. The issue arising for decision in the captioned 5 appeals being the same, the appeals are disposed of by this common order. These appeals were initially filed as a Revision Application to the Central Government and have now come to this Tribunal as transferred proceedings under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if it were an appeal before it.2. The issue involved in these appeals is whether the PVC/PU leather cloth imported by the appellants was entitled to the benefit of Customs Notification No. 29/79. The appellants' claim was that the goods were imported as embellishment for footwear. The lower authorities did not accept this contention and hence these appeals.3. The appeals were heard on 1-9-1983. Shri Balani, Counsel for the appellants, drew our attention to the Tribunal's order in Appeal No.221/81-D in the case of Allibhey Mohamed, Bombay, wherein it was held that stamping coils in running length were eligible for the concession contained in the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Lubri-chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2094DTri(Delhi)
C-589-590/BII-132-133/83 dated 17-3-1983. By this order the Appellate Collector of Central Excise ordered that the liquid paraffin IP grade should be assessed after labelling and packing under item 14E of Central Excise, since the product was of pharmaceutical grade and that the paraffin was sold in drum bearing labelling and marking with a monogram of the assessee. He held that as packing amounts to manufacture so far as tariff item 14E was concerned the product would be liable to further duty under tariff item 14E after packing and labelling. He accordingly held that the assessment made by the Asstt.Collector was in order. He also held that the assessee had misdeclared the product as a drug intermediate falling under item 68 and had suppressed the fact that a product satisfying the specification of tariff item 8 emerged. There was no time-bar in the demand as it would be covered by the longer period of 5 years. The Appellate Collector as well as the Asstt. Collector before him held ...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Narang Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2102DTri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal against the order in revision dated 23rd September, 1982 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it stood at the relevant time.2. It would appear that the Appellant brought, on his arrival on or about 11-3-1982, four items of personal household effects, out of which a National Panasonic Video Camera and National Panasonic VCR were not given the benefit, in adjudication, of the Transfer of Residence Rules, by the Assistant Collector, on the ground that the Appellant's father and not 'the Appellant himself was the owner thereof.3. The Appellant's father would appear to have arrived subsequently on 25-4-1982.4. On his arrival the Appellant and his father would appear to have applied for a revision of the adjudication order.5. In the order in revision the Additional Collector of Customs held that- (a) a scrutiny of the invoices revealed that the goods in question were purchased for export to India an...
Tag this Judgment!Mihir Textiles Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC(1988)DTri(Delhi)
1. The impugned order-in-appeal was a combined order passed in relation to five orders in original passed by the Assistant Collector. Out of these, the appellant's appeal in relation to order-in original No.V(18-E)3-14/DA/73/304 dated 3-12-1974, involving differential duty of Rs. 1,12,893.36 was heard and allowed on 27-7-83 by this Bench. The remaining four appeals arising out of the same order-in-appeal but in relation to four different orders-in-original mentioned above were heard today. As they relate to the same appellants and involve a common point of law, they are being disposed of by this combined order.2. The appellants stated that the facts in relation to appeals No.200/76-D and 202/76-D were that they had paid the duty leviable on the specified blended yarn falling under Item No. 18E of the Central Excise Tariff according to the rates prescribed in Exemption Notification No.63/72-C.E., dated 17-3-72 as and when the said yarn was removed from the spinning department to the we...
Tag this Judgment!C.B. Dhall Vs. State Bank of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: (1984)ILLJ537Del
1. THE FACTS : This is a pension case. The petitioner C. B. Dhall retired from the service of the respondent State Bank of India, on 30th June, 1979 as head cashier. It was a pensionable post. He joined the service in July 1939 as a cashier in the then Imperial Bank of India. The State Bank Act, 1955 (the Act) was passed on 8th May, 1955. It came into force on 1st July, 1955. The services of the petitioner were transferred to the State Bank. In July 1956 he was promoted as head cashier. 2. During 1969-73 the petitioner was posted at Agra as a head cashier. On 31st May, 1973 he was suspended on account of certain charges brought against him. On 24th November, 1975 a charge sheet was served on him. This enquiry went on till 29th May, 1979. On 30th June, 1979 the petitioner attained the age of 60 years and retired from the service of the Bank. 3. After the petitioner had retired, the enquiry officer made his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority held petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!General Industrial Society Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1983)LC2028DTri(Delhi)
1. The proceedings in this case emanated from a notice to show cause bearing date 29-7-1976, having been issued by Superintendent, Central Excise, Chandernagore I Range (Annexure 'B') whereby the appellant company was called upon to show cause as to why central excise duty was not payable at all the three stages of manufacture of yarn, produced at their factory, namely, (i) cotton yarn (ii) staple yarn and (iii) the process of twisting or doubling these two yarns into a multiple fold yarn.2. The facts, as revealed by the show cause notice, indicate that the appellant viz. a Company under name and style M/s. The General Industrial Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), manufactured separately cotton yarn of tariff item 18A, and staple yarn falling under Tariff entry 18, and used these two yarns as constituents, to produce a multiple-fold yarn, by the processing of doubling and twisting. During the period from October, 1975 to June, 1976, the appellant cleared this ...
Tag this Judgment!