Delhi Court July 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 Central Excise Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-02-1986
Reported in: (1986)(26)ELT1057TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 26.8.1985 read with the Addendum dated 30.9.85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda. The respondents in this case, M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals of Baroda manufacture Patent or Proprietary Medicines classifiable under Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff. The issue involved is regarding their claim for assessment of duty at the concessional rate under Notification No. 116/69 dated 3.5.1969 on nine items of P or P Medicines manufactured by the respondents. In this case, the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed an order on 12.1.83 holding that in respect of nine items of medicine manufactured by the respondents, the concessional rate of 2-1/2% under the notification was permissible and not 12-1/2%.2. On 8.10.1984, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda issued a direction to othe Assistant Collector under Section 35E(2) of the Central...
Collector of Customs and ors. Vs. Gopalkrishna Bros. and ors.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-01-1986
Reported in: (1986)(9)ECC148
1. All these appeals relate to (a common issue and were, therefore, heard together. The relevant details in each appeal as to the name of the assessee, number of the order in appeal etc. are given in the annexure to this order.2. The assessees in all these matters had imported Ophthalmic Rough Blanks. They had been called upon to pay additional duty of customs on such imports on the basis that the subject goods fell under T.I. 23A(4) CET. They later applied for refund questioning the said classification.In some of the matters the Appellate Collector concerned accepted the claims and held that proper classification would be under T.I. 68 CET.He, therefore, ordered refund of the difference in duty. In other cases (except one) the Appellate Collector upheld the order of the Assistant Collector. In the remaining case (Appeal No. 497/80) the refund claim has 'been rejected as barred by time in terms of the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. In cases where the Appellate Collect...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›