Delhi Court October 1986 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.
Muthreja and Co. and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC157Tri(Delhi)
1. The two appellants imported one MINOLTA EP-300RE Photocopier each as cargo by air on 30-7-1985. Since the required import licence or customs clearance permit was not produced, the lower authorities have confiscated the goods absolutely. As the facts and issues involved are common in the two appeals and both arise out of the same order-in-appeal, we are making this common order to dispose of both of them.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their (sic) and the record. The appellants do not dispute that the goods required an import licence or CCP. Admittedly, they do not have such a licence or CCP. In fact, they never tried to obtain one. Their prayer is that since the goods were licensable and hence not "absolutely prohibited", the lower authorities should not have absolutely confiscated them. They state that till August, 1985 there was a practice at Delhi Airport to release photocopiers on payment of fine and they want us to release their goods also on payment ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Sri Balaji Cable Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC236
1. The captioned revision show cause notice issued by the Central Government under the then Section 36(2) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is, on transfer of the proceedings to this Tribunal, now before us for disposal as if it were an appeal filed by the department.2. The respondents are riot represented before us today despite notice issued to them by registered post on 10-9-1986. However, we have perused their written reply to the Central Government's show cause notice, heard the learned representative of the department, examined the record and considered the matter carefully, since a common issue is involved in these five appeals, we make this combined order to dispose of all of them.3. The facts, in brief are, that the respondents purchase aluminium rods which have borne Central Excise duty under Item 27(a) of the Central Excise Tariff. From these rods, they first draw aluminium wire of 10 SWG or less and then manufacture therefrom All Aluminium Conductors (AAC) and Aluminiu...
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-20-1986
Reported in: 1988(16)ECC198; 1988(33)ELT70(Del)
Malik Shareif-Ud-Din, J.1. Rule D.B.2. This petition Along with CM. 1765 of 1986 came up for preliminary hearing before us on 26th September, 1986 at show cause stage. But, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, we have with the consent of the counsel for the parties decided to finally dispose it off.3. In this petition the petitioners are challenging the supply of raw-material i.e. split palm stearin fatty acid and crude palm stearin to the petitioners by the STC, respondent No. 6, for the quarters July September, 1984, October - December, 1984 and for all the four quarters of the year 1985 at the present prevailing market price and not at the price which was fixed for that raw-material during the quarters when it was supplied to every other actual user. The case of the petitioner is that the foresaid raw-material was illegally and arbitrarily withheld by the respondents at the relevant time and when the supply of raw material was eventually made by STC, responde...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ramesh Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-19-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC207
1. M/s. Ramesh Enterprises (P) Ltd. presented a shipping bill on 16.6.1981 for export of 417 bags of coffee to U.S.A. by vessel "President Eisenhower". It was assessed to duty and cess at the rates prevalent on that date. On 19.6.1981 the name of the vessel in the shipping bill was amended to "M.V. President Wilson". Duty was paid and shipment was affected. On 10.7.1981 the respondents preferred a refund claim on the ground that export duty on coffee was withdrawn from 19.6.1981 and that entry outwards to M.V. President Wilson was granted on 10.6.1981. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 18.8.1981. The appeal against the same was allowed by the Appellate Collector under order dated 19.2.1982. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred by the Collector of Customs, Madras.2. We have heard Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. C.D.R. for the appellant Collector and Shri K.R. Shanmugha Sundaram, Consultant for the respondents.3. The ground stated...
H. Guru Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC28
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned orders in pursuance of which central excise duty amounting to Rs. 57,688.27 has been demanded from them on scientific and Industrial Instruments manufactured by them through M/s. India Electrodes and Components ('IEC' for short) and cleared unauthorisedly without payment of central excise duty. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has laso been imposed on them.2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their submissions and the record. The appellants pressed before us only the following two arguments: (1) Since the appellants supplied only the raw materials and all manufacturing operations were performed by M/s. IEC, M/s. I.E.C. were the manufacturers and not the appellants; and (2) the demand show cause 'notice issued on 24.2.1979 for the period 6.3.1975 to 17.1.1978 was time barred. As no allegation of fraud or suppression had been made in the show cause notice and hence the normal time limit of six months applied.3. We find from the...
Toshiba Anand Batteries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC256
1. The dispute is whether a single dry cell manufactured by M/s Toshiba Anand Betteries is a dry battery assessable under item 31(1) of the Central Excise Tariff or not. These dry cells are used in flash lights, transistors radio and other equipments in which electricity is fed into the equipment by such cells. According to the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Koshy, the single cell is not a battery and cannot be assessed under Tariff item 31(1). He claims this by explaining the meaning of what the word battery means.2. He cites the ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS REFERENCE BOOK 13th Edition added by Shri M.G. Say, section 15 defines: The term 'battery' means an assembly of voltaic primary or secondary cells. Batteries of secondary cells are also known as storage batteries or accumulators. In both types the individual cells consist of a positive or negative electrode immersed in an electrically conducting fluid called the electrolyte, and generally separated by a porous insulating diaphrag...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ramesh Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT232TriDel
1. M/s Ramesh Enterprises (P) Ltd. presented a shipping bill on 16-6-1981 for export of 417 bags of coffee to U.S.A. by vessel "President Eisenhower". It was assessed to duty and cess at the rates prevalent on that date. On 19-6-1981 the name of the vessel in the shipping bill was amended to "M.V. President Wilson". Duty was paid and shipment was affected. On 10-7-1981 the respondents preferred a refund claim on the ground that export duty on coffee was withdrawn from 19-6-1981 and that entry outwards to M.V. President Wilson was granted on 10-6-1981. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under order dated 18-8-1981. The appeal against the same was allowed by the Appellate Collector under order dated 19-2-1982. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred by the Collector of Customs, Madras.2. We have heard Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. C.D.R. for the appellant Collector and Shri K.R. Shanmugha Sundaram, Consultant for the respondents.3. The ground stated ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Metallizing and Engineering
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT752TriDel
1. M/s. Metallizing & Engineering Works manufacture what they describe as metallizing wires. Under notice dated 21-7- 1979 the Assistant Collector directed them to show cause why these goods should not be classified as welding electrodes falling under Tariff Item 50 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and why duty should not be demanded from them on that basis in respect of their manufacture and clearances for the years 1973-74 to 1976- 77. The Company replied denying that the said goods fell under Tariff Item 50 CET. On adjudication the Assistant Collector, under order dated 19-9-1979, rejected the case of the Company and directed the Company to take out a licence and submit classification list. He authorised raising of necessary demands of duty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50/-. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta under order dated 18-8-1980. Subsequently the Central Government issued notice on 12-11...
Collector of Customs Vs. Cutex Products and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT742TriDel
1. In these appeals, captioned above, which were received in the registry on 11.8.1986, in respect to a consolidated order-in-appeal, stated to have been received by the Appellate Collector on 5.6.1985; applications for condonation of delay in each case have been moved.These applications were taken up first on 23.9.1986, when a note was taken of the period of delay which amounts to 11 months and six days but on Shri Gopinath's request adjournment was granted as he wanted to obtain further particulars from the Collector of Customs, seeking justification for the delay in filing the appeals. Time as sought was allowed in the ends of justice. It was also observed that in the application for condonation of delay, a reference had been made to earlier appeals filed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and it was thought expedient to have the files of those appeals put up so as to see detes of filing of those appeals.2. Today, on the matter being taken up, Shri Gopinath, SDR has appeared for...
Kamlesh Seth Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC271Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an Application for Rectification of Mistake in the order of this Tribunal No. A/255-257/1986-NRB, dated the 30th May, 1986.2. In the order appealed against before the Tribunal, the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi had directed confiscation of 874.850 gms. of gold ornaments and 67 gms. of gold rawa and wire, but Had allowed the same to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 45,000/-. The applicants have deposited the said amount and obtained the release of the gold. In the appeal, the Tribunal decided that the order of the Collector confiscating 874.850 gms. of gold ornaments be set aside and as such, ornaments be released to the appellants. The order of the Collector confiscating 67 gms. of gold, however, was upheld and the fine in redemption thereof was sustained. The penalties of the order of Rs. 7,500/- on each of the appellants was ordered to be reduced from Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 2,000/- each and the balance of the penalties, it was ordered should be refunded forthwit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »