Delhi Court November 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 4 of about 90 results (0.022 seconds)Autometers Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(13)ECC103; 1987(29)ELT3(Del)
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, seeks to get an order of refund of part of the amount paid by it as additional customs duty. 2. The petitioner imported copper tubes which were used as raw material in the manufacture of Oil and Temperature Gauges, which are being manufactured by the petitioner company. It is stated in the petition, and as is established by annexure P-1 to the writ petition, these copper alloy capillary tubes were imported into India by the petitioner, and they landed in India between 24th September, 1984 and 9th January, 1985, and additional customs duty was paid thereon at the rate of 28%. This duty was paid on account of tariff entry 26(A). 3. It is the case of the petitioner that a notification was published with reference to item No. 26(A) on 17th September, 1984, that is to say a few days before the goods relating to which the additional customs duty was paid, landed in India, and was charged customs d...
Tag this Judgment!Haryana Engineering and Foundry Works Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ84
Mahesh Chandra, J. (1) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings.(2) The facts giving rise to this application are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No. I-Union of India through the Department of Railways and in pursuance thereof purchase order No. 211/S/ 163/TSO dated 30th September 1978 was placed upon the petitioner and when part of the supplies had been made there under by the petitioner, the said contract was rescinded by respondent No. I and respondent No. I thereafter proceeded with risk purchase against the petitioner. It was under these circumstances that the petitioner filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the court of Senior Sub-Judge, Ambala, but on the representation of respondent No. I made vide letter No. 211/S/163/TSO dated 20th May 1983 (annexure 'P2') the said application was w...
Tag this Judgment!Autometers Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 1988(14)LC325(Delhi)
Mahinder Narain, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, seeks to get an order of refund of part of the amount paid by it as additional customs duty.2. The petitioner imported copper tubes which were used as raw material in the manufacture of Oil and Temperature Gauges, which are being manufactured by the petitioner company. It is stated in the petition, and as is established by annexure P-l to the writ petition, these copper alloy capillary tubes were imported into India by the petitioner, and they landed in India between 24th September, 1984 and 9th January, 1985, and additional customs duty was paid thereon at the rate of 28%. This duty was paid on account of tariff entry 26(A).3. It is the case of the petitioner that a notification was published with reference to item No. 26(A) on 17th September, 1984, that is to say a few days before the goods relating to which the additional customs duty was paid, landed in India, and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Lee and Murshead (India) Private Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(30)ELT816TriDel
1. M/s. National Newsprint & Paper Mills Limited imported certain goods under Bill of Entry No. 1071D, dated 7-7-1979. The goods were described as 'Instrumentation Spares' and were cleared under payment of duty.Subsequently they applied for refund of part of the Customs duty paid by them on the grounds that Items 3, 5 & 6 of the Bill of Entry were classified under Headings 90.15, 84.31 and 84.14 CTA respectively but the goods were entitled to lower rate of duty. The Assistant Collector admitted part of the refund claim and rejected the claim in respect of the re-classification of three items.2. The Appellate Collector allowed the appeal in respect of Item No. 3 in the B/E. In respect of Item No. 5, (Pneumatic Power Cylinder) he held that it was correctly classified under Heading 84.59(1) and in respect of Item No. 6 (Dual Cup Gasket Assembly) he ordered that the goods be classified under Heading 84.64 CTA. The appellants thereafter filed a revision application, which is now an...
Tag this Judgment!Diamond Products Vs. Delhi Administration
Court: Delhi
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT46; 1987(12)DRJ213
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, instituted on a complaint under Sections 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, this Court is left with a wide discretion to adopt any of the four courses open to it : (A)to follow the case set up by the complainant-M.C.D. ; (B)to adhere to the report of the Public Analyst ; (C)to confirm the findings of the learned lower court ; or (D)to accede to the request of the accused/petitioner for the quashing of the proceedings altogether. (2) In order to solve this tangle, .one has only to go Along with the admitted facts. On 19/4/79, Shri A.P. Singh, Food Inspector, in the company of Shri R.K. Ahuja, Food Inspector, after disclosing their identity, expressed their intention to purchase, and in fact purchased 'gold fingers' which was exhibited for sale Along with other food articles at the shop of the accused, No. 96, Baird Road, New Delhi, as sample for analysis. The Food Inspector purchased six bags of gold fi...
Tag this Judgment!Para Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT668TriDel
1. The appellants filed Revision Application before the Central Government against the order-in-appeal No. 207 to 211/80 dated 4-3-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, New Delhi. By the said order-in-appeal the Appellate Collector disposed of five appeals filed by the appellants against give order-in-original bearing No. 115 to 119/77 dated 27-4-1977 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), New Delhi. The Revision Application was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as appeal.2 As per practice followed in this Tribunal four supplementary appeals were later on filed, which have been listed for hearing alongwith main Revision Application before us today.3 We have heard Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri J. Gopinath, learned S.D.R. for the respondent.4. The appellants imported five consignments containing parts of Industrial Sewing Machine, vide Bills of Entry Nos. 5683 dated 22-4-1976, 6718 dated 22-5-1976, 6997 dat...
Tag this Judgment!Equipment Sales Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC251Tri(Delhi)
1. The subject-matter of dispute, in this appeal, are goods imported by the appellant, and described in the invoice as well as Bill of Entry as : 'Drainage Bags'. The Bill of Entry, for home-consumption and clearance, was filed on 16-2-85 in the Bangalore Customs House. While classifying the goods under Tariff Item 90.17/18 of the CTA, the appellants styled them as 'life saving surgical & medical equipment', and claimed benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus. dated 22-9-81 vide Serial No. 22A. It was also claimed that the import was permissible under O.G.L. vide Item No. 38 in List-2 of Appendix-VI of the ITC Policy for the year AM 1984-85.2. The authorities, however, entertained a doubt about claim of the appellants for benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus, and also to their entitlement to have the import under the OGL. A notice to show cause was accordingly issued on 7-3-85. After considering appellants' reply thereto, dated 20-3-85, an order was passed by the Collector of Cus...
Tag this Judgment!Shakti Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT95TriDel
1. As common questions on facts and law are involved in both these actions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Appeal No. 1005/82-B-I is the revision application filed before the Govt. of India against the order of the Central Board of Excise dated 18.8.1981 and has been transferred to this Tribunal. Appeal No.1862/85-B-I is the supplementary appeal filed by M/s. M.G. Industries who are parties to the main adjudication and a common order had been passed by the Board.3. M/s. Shakti Engg. Works, Batala is a registered partnership firm consisting of Shri Walaiti Ram (Individual), Km. Saroj and Shri Subhash Chander. This firm was started in 1957. M/s. M.G. Inds. was started in 1971. This firm consists of Sh. Walaiti Ram (Karta of the HUF), Smt.Prema Wad, Sh. Subhash Chander, Master Navin and Master Dinesh. Km.Saroj and Subhash Chander are also individually members of the partnership. It is seen from the order of the Board that in Shakti Engg. Works,...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC4
1. The appellants claim for refund based on Notification No. 55/75-CE of additional duty in respect of imported Pyridine Pure 2 degrees was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 26.3.1983 on The ground that the importers have not mentioned the end product nor shown use of the product as drug-intermediate. The order was upheld in appeal by Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay by his order dated 26.8.1983 on the ground that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the imported goods were drug or drug intermediate. The importers were traders and not manufacturers. There was no guarantee that goods would be used in the manufacture of drugs.If they are not so used, the intention behind the notification is violated. Aggrieved, the appellants filed appeal to the Tribunal.2. In response to the notice of the date of hearing, the appellants by their communication dated 9.10.1986 received in the Tribunal on 14.10.86, intimated that they do net wish to ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central, Excise Vs. Minichem India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC327Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts in this case are that on 13th April, 1981, the respondents were issued a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice for duty amounting to Rs. 32,951.65 in respect of the products, alleged by the department, to have been cleared by the respondents on behalf of M/s Merita & Mehta Associates for the period from February 79 to January 1980. It was alleged that M/s Mehta & Mehta Associates had declared, vide their declaration dated 2.2.79 that the impugned goods will be manufactured and cleared on their behalf by M/s Minichem. However, the respondents, it is alleged in the Show Cause Notice, made a wrong declaration of lower assessable value.2. Finally, it is alleged that the respondents had opted for the benefit of Notification No. 120/75 dated 30.4.75 but they were ineligible for the concession in view of condition No. 4 of the said Notification which the respondents did not satisfy.3. The Order-in-Original in this matter was passed by the concerned Assistant Collector, who observ...
Tag this Judgment!