Delhi Court June 1986 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1986 Page 1 of about 21 results (0.021 seconds)Raj Brothers Agencies Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC157
1. This appeal is against the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras dated. 9-1-1984. By the impugned order, differential duty of Rs. 4,89,574.50 is demanded and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed.2. For a proper appreciation of the controversy, certain facts have to be set out. One Shri Prithvi Raj Singh (P.R. Singh) as sole proprietor commenced the business in the sale of battery plates at No. 168, Mount Road, Madras 2 in the' name and style "RAJ BROTHERS AGENCIES" during 1951. Shri P.R. Singh commenced manufacture of battery plates at No.40, Whites Road, Madras 14 in 1962. The factory was located in the first floor of the said premises and in the ground floor there were more than 20 tenants. On the death of Shri P.R. Singh, a partnership was formed by his widow and his eldest son, Shri Dharam Kumar with two other minor sons of the deceased. Some changes in the constitution arose subsequently. The manufacturers had opted for compounding levy on the battery pl...
Tag this Judgment!Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT962TriDel
1. First mentioned two appeals, filed by M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd., Bombay emanate from a common Order-in-Appeal passed by Central Board of Customs & Excise. Third appeal, which is by M/s. Voltas Ltd., Bombay arose out of same imports but the proceedings, which have been received by the Tribunal for being disposed of and treated as an appeal, was a revision application filed' before the Central Government, against an Order-in-Revision passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, being Order No.dated 19-8-1978. Since the issue involved in these three appeals are interconnected, all the three were heard together, and are being disposed of accordingly by one consolidated order.2. Brief facts of the matter are that M/s. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Raymond') imported on 16-K1978 60 drums, "oxytetracycline hydrpchloride" and these goods were sought to be cleared under two Import Licences Nos. 2797359 & 2797752 issued on 10-8-1977 & 17-8-1977 which...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise Vs. Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(27)ELT362TriDel
1. Through this application purporting to be under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, the appellant prays that the following alleged questions of law which are said to have arisen out of the order No. 406/85-D dated 21.11.85, passed by this Tribunal, be referred to the Hon'ble High Court : i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal correct in holding that the period of limitation of six months for filing a refund claim under Rule 11 is to run from the date of receipt of the respondent's refund claim by the jurisdictional superintendent of Central Excise, when Rule 11 (as amended) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, under which the refund claim was made, read, at the material time of the case, that such application for refund had to be made to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal correct in holding that the refund claim of the respondent for the period from 14.3.78 to 26.3.78 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Central Excise and Vs. General Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC211
1. Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. M-1653/PN-115/84 dated 6.8.84 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that M/s. General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Kasarwadi are manufacturers of 'Diakanol AMH' as one of their products. The respondent had claimed that the product has padding applications especially in fabric industries and had claimed its classification under tariff item 68 keeping in view tariff advice No.43/77 with applicable benefits available to small scale industries under relevant notification. In order to ascertain the properties of the product, the samples of the same were sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay on 10.3.1983 and as per Chemical Examiner's report dated 10.5.1983 that sample was an "Acqueous solution of polyacrylamide synthetic resins", with the advice to ascertain actual end-use of the product. The Revenue Authority had given a cop...
Tag this Judgment!Gupta Radio and Watch Company Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)LC231Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Review No.1/83(Customs) dated 3-5-83 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur in C.No. IV(16)/Review/ 8/81/1566 holding that the Order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur was improper and therefore the case be adjudicated by him de_ novo.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal lie in narrow compass. It is alleged that on 1-9-79 the Customs Preventive party checked the accounts and stocks of the imported Wrist watches of the appellant firm in the presence of their partner Shri Kedar Nath Gupta and 20 Wrist, Watches, 10- Watch Movements, all of foreign origin and valued at Rs. 4300/-, were found over and above the book balance. It is further alleged that 86 Cassettes, one Gang Condenser, 62 Pencil Cells and one Audio Tape and 295 Radio Valves all of foreign origin and valued at Rs. 5773/-were also found. As a follow-up action after the seizure of the said goods, a Show Cause Notice was issued to...
Tag this Judgment!National Textile Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC219
1. Since these two appeals involve a common issue, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. An exactly similar issue had cropped up in respect of some other consignments of viscose staple fibre imported by the same appellants by the same vessel "BANGLAR PROGOTI" discharged at Calcutta and transshipped to Madras Port by M.V. "KHULNA" (the same vessel as in the previous cases) in identical circumstances. Two such appeals - appeal No. 494/1981 (D) and appeal No. 832/81-(D) - had been disposed of by the Tribunal's orders Nos. 232/83 dated 18.4.83 and 686/84-(D) dt.15.12.84 confirming the orders of the lower authorities. Quite recently another such appeal No. 966/81-(D) was disposed by a similar order No.189/86(D) dated 31.3.86 again confirming the orders of the lower authorities. However, when the present two appeals were taken up, Shri Rangaswamy, counsel for the appellants, stated that he would like to submit some further arguments. Since the salient as...
Tag this Judgment!Mecneill and Magor Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC105
1. On hearing both sides, we observe that the appellants are agitating for exclusion of the following two sets of costs which the lower authorities have added to the value of their forklift trucks for the purpose of assessment of central excise duty:- 3. Attachments and accessories such as load back rest, extra set of lights, ram attachment, crane attachment etc.2. The period relevant to the controversy is from 15-10-1982 to 31-7-1983.3. We find that the point at issue for cost category I above stood settled in the appellants' favour by the following orders-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector/Collector (Appeals) in the appellant's own case:- (1) Order-in-appeal No. 262/Cal./82 dated 31-3-1982 (for battery and battery charger). (3) Order-in-appeal No. 462/Cal./83 dated 30-3-1983 (for accessories).We are informed that no appeal was filed by the department against an of the aforesaid orders-in-appeal. These orders, therefore, became final.4. We asked the learned representative of...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Dass Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)18ITD468(Delhi)
1. These are cross appeals relating to the same assessment year. They are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. This appeal is by the assessee. The assessee is an individual.Assessment was completed for this year on a total income of Rs. 3,69,500 under Section 143(3)/144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). Included in this was an item of Rs. 3,50,154. The reasons for which the ITO made this addition were as follows : 1. The assessee received Rs. 3,50,154 from the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking ('DESU'). It was paid to the assessee during the relevant accounting year (which ended on 31-3-1978) following 'a decree'passed by the Delhi High Court. The facts which led to the above payment were as under. 2. During the financial year 1972-73, the assessee supplied coal to DESU in the name of Universal Traders. There was no written contract with DESU on this supply. Total value of the coal supplied was Rs. 16,00,525.25. Against this, the assessee was paid Rs. 10,64,192.10. There ...
Tag this Judgment!United Chemie Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC100
1. This is an application, purporting to be one under the proviso to S.35 F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter, the Act) praying, inter alia, that a deposit of the differential duty for the years 1978-79, 79-80 and 80-81, being sought to be recovered from the applicant herein, together with a penalty in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as well as another sum of Rs. 23,27,519.36 alleged to have been demanded from the applicant by the Superintendent by his letter dated 29-12-1984, be dispensed with and the recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant. (a) It was originally filed on or about 15-4-1985 when the duty required to be paid in terms of the order under appeal was not yet quantified, although the penalty was. The application was not in conformity with the requirements of R. 28 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and when this was pointed out on 19-7-1985, the applicant offered to file an appr...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT538TriDel
1. The issue that arises for decision in this appeal is as to whether the Incoloy 800 Tubes of two different sizes said to be required as spares for a Reformed Gas Boiler are assessable to duty in terms of item 73.17/19(2) or Item 73.17/19(1)(iii) or Item 84.01/02 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. While the Asstt. Collector had held the goods to be Tubes of "Stainless Steel" and accordingly assessable to duty in terms of Item 73.17/19(2) of the 1st Schedule, the Collector (Appeals) held them to be assessable under Item 84.01/02 thereof.3. At the material time, Item 73.17/19 - "Tubes and pipes and blanks therefor, of iron or steel" - was divided into two sub-headings. While sub-heading (2) speaks of such goods "of Stainless Steel", sub-heading (1) covers "other than Stainless Steel". Subhead (1) was further divided into four different items and the third was "Tubes and pipes for boilers falling within Heading No. 84.01/02 and blanks therefor".Appeal No. C/1810/85-B...
Tag this Judgment!