Delhi Court June 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.
Collector of Customs Vs. Warner Hindustan Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC108
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, is as to whether the goods imported (named Incoloy-800) conform to the specification, composition and description of "stainless steel", so as to be assessable to duty under Item No. 73.15(2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (the Schedule and the Act for short), or they are assessable to duty under Item 73.15(1) of the Schedule as goods "not elsewhere specified".While the Asstt. Collector had held them to be assessable to duty under Item 73.15(2) on the ground that the goods conform to the definition of "stainless steel", the Collector (Appeals) had held that they were alloy steel sheets and not "stainless steel" sheets and accordingly they are more appropriately assessable to duty under Heading 73.15(1) of the Schedule.2. The identical question arises in regard to another import of the same goods in Appeal No. 1950/85-B2 (C.C., Bombay v. Rashtriya Chemicals and ...
iqbal Kaur Vs. Gurdii Singh and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1986
Reported in: 30(1986)DLT276
S.B. Wad, J. (1) This is a second appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated May 24, 1973. The Tribunal had dismissed the application of the applicant under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act upholding the similar order passed by the Rent Controller. A decree was passed against Shri Bhagwant Singh for non-payment of arrears of rent on November 10, 1972. The appellant is the wife of Shri Bhagwant Singh. While passing a decree for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent Shri Bhagwant Singh had prayed for time for one month for vacating and the learned Judge had granted the said time. After the said period of one month had expired on May 8, 1973 the appellant wife moved an application under Section 25 of the Act. The Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal found that the appellant was neither a sub-letter nor had an independent title to the suit premises. (2) The present appeal was filed on 28-5-1973. It was admitted ex parte, and an ex parte stay of dispossession...
H.M.M. Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC119
1 This is an appeal directed against order No. 196/84(G) dated 1.12.84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dismissing the appeal filed by M/s. Hindustan Milk Food Manufacturers Ltd., Dowleswaram (to be referred to hereinafter as "HMM", for brevity's sake) against Order No. 19/84 dated 17-8-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajahmundry.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that HMM are engaged in the manufacture of milk foods which fall for classification as ''Prepared or Preserved Foods" under item No. 1B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (GET, for brevity's sake).One of the principal inputs for manufacture of milk foods is barley malt falling under item No. 68 CET. HMM used to receive duty-paid barley malt and utilize the same in the manufacture of prepared or preserved foods, namely, 'Horlicks', 'Happiness' etc. HMM were availing of the facility of set off of the duty paid on barley malt towards p...
Metagraphs Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC91
1. By order No. 10 of 1980 (undated) the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I, by exercising his powers under Section 35-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, revised the assessment of the Assistant Collector of the Central Excise, Bombay Division 'K', in classification list No. 168/79 dated 24th December, 1979, of goods declared as printed aluminium labels assessable under item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff at nil rate of duty by reason of notification No. 55/75-C.E. dated 1-3-1975. The manufacturers, M/s. Metagraphs Private Ltd. claimed the goods to be products of the printing industry and, therefore, exempted under serial No. 13 of the notification. That claim was approved by the Assistant Collector and this led to the revision under Section 35A by the Collector who held that the labels served only the purpose of displaying the name of the manufacturers and the name of the product and were in no way related to the printing industry and, therefore, could not be described a...
Lubrizol India Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1986
Reported in: (1986)(8)LC410Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these two appeals and they are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2., On hearing both sides, we observe that the appellants imported certain chemical intermediates. They paid the customs duty assessed and cleared the goods. Later on, they applied for refund of the duty paid contending that the goods had been contaminated in the ships' holds and had been found by them to be incapable of their intended use. It was an agreed position between the appellants and the lower authorities, and so also before us, that the only provision of the Customs Act, 1962 under which their claim could be dealt with was Section 22. This Section provides for abatement of duty proportionate to the reduction in the value of the goods on account of damage or deterioration. The lower authorities rejected the appellants' claim on the ground that Section 22 had no application once the goods had been cleared out of customs control, 3. On careful consideration of the matter...
Binny Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC440Tri(Delhi)
1. It is alleged in the present matter that the appellant company used to receive proofed coloured canvas from various proofers, which was given by them to tailoring, contractors, who used to fabricate such proofed canvas into tarpaulin with the aid of power operated sewing machines. The company's agency division, in this manner, was allegedly fabricating tarpaulin for more than 25 years but this fact was not reported to the Department. The process of fabrication of tarpaulin adopted by the company and other details regarding employment of contract labour, use of power operated sewing machines, etc. were also not intimated to the Department; nor was a sample of completed tarpaulin furnished to the Department to enable it to examine it for purposes of correct classification. At one stage, a clarification was sought by the company from the Department but on a hypothetical note stating that they were planning the manufacture of tarpaulin in their mills and not that they were already enga...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rashtriya Chemicals and
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT496TriDel
1.This order disposes of the preliminary objection of the respondent urging that Review Notice dated 10-11-1980 proposing to review order dated 29-11-1979 is beyond limitation.2. The matter was earlier adjourned because the precise question with respect to some other parties was pending decision before a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal due to conflict in decisions of Three Member Special Benches. That decision has now been announced as per Order No.30/86-B1 dated 8th April, 1986.3. At the hearing today, we have heard Shri Hidayatullah, advocate in support of the preliminary objection which is the issue arising for decision before us and Shri Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative for the other party, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. Shri Hidayatullah invited our attention to Order No. 30/86-B1 wherein the Bench held that even though Section 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 came into force on 17-11-1980, the limitation set out therein for the purpose of review notice ...
Dharampur Leather Cloth Co. Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC173
1. M/s. Dharampur Leather Company had filed six Revision Applications to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. 1321/78 dated 30.11.78 passed by the Appellate Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Bombay. The learned Appellate Collector, Central Excise had disposed of six appeals by a consolidated order. After corning into existence of the Tribunal, the said Revision Applications were transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be disposed of as appeals. Since a common issue is involved, all the six appeals are disposed of by a common consolidated order. Since the facts of all the six appeals are similar, the facts of the matter in respect of appeal No. 219/79 are reproduced below:- 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Dharampur Leather Cloth Co.Pvt. Ltd. had charged different prices in the invoices for t...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. I.P.G. Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC78
1. The present proceedings have their genesis in the notice bearing F.No. 198/8/15/138/81-CX 5 dated 27.11.81 issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as it stood at the material time. The proceedings, not having been concluded on the eve of the setting up of this Tribunal, were transferred to it in terms of Section 35P(2) of the Act to be disposed of as if it were on appeal filed before the Tribunal by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. I.G.P.Engineers (P) Ltd., Madras (the respondents before us) were engaged in the manufacture of non-automotive gaskets made out of compressed asbestos jointing sheets on which duty had been paid under item No. 22F of the First Schedule ('CET', for brevity's sake) to the Act. During the relevant period, they were manufacturin...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1986
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT569TriDel
1. The issue in this case is whether various chemicals and chemical formulations (collectively called "chemicals" for convenience), which are used in the manufacture of aluminium by the electrolytic process, are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-7-1979 as amended by Notification No. 105/82 dated 28-2-1982. The chemicals or products in question are Cryolite, Calcium Fluoride, Aluminium Fluoride, Boric Acid, "Degasser" and "Coverall". The Assistant Collector had held that these were not eligible for exemption under the notification as amended. The Collector (Appeals) took the opposite view and held them as eligible for exemption. The Collector has come up in appeal against the order of the Collector (Appeals).2. At the outset a question arose whether "Annexure D" to the appeal, purporting to be a copy Of the opinion dated 22-3-1984 by the Chief Chemist, Central Revenues, regarding the chemicals in question could be taken on record. Shri Jain objected to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »