Delhi Court September 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.
Auto Lamps Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC170
1. This appeal was heard by Special Bench A, consisting of Members Shri M. Gouri Sankara Murthy and Shri K. Prakash Anand. The two learned Members have recorded separate orders disclosing a difference of opinion. The points on which there is a difference of opinion have been referred to me as President in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (5) of Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Sub-section (1) of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 2. I have heard Shri N.C. Jain, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri V.M. Dopiphode, S.D.R., representing the respondent Collector. The basic facts of the case have been set out in the orders of the two learned Members. However, as the history of the case is somewhat long and complex, it would be helpful to set out the salient facts.3. The appellants are manufacturers of auto lamps. The goods manufactured by them are sold partly to their 4 distributors, partly to industrial consumers and independent buyers, and partly to M/s....
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(27)ELT701TriDel
1. Since the cross-objections merely pray for upholding the impugned order which is also the subject matter under appeal filed by the appellant, a common order is being passed.2. Brief facts of the case as given in the impugned order are as follows :- M/s Shri Janki Sugar Mills and Company, Doiwala (as it was known at that time) manufactured 65965.65 qtls. as molasses during 1982-83 out of which 55795.25 qtls. were lifted out by various customers/allottees and 10170.40 qtls. were left as balance in stock in R.G. 1 on 8-8-1983. On the basis of permission given by the State Excise Authorities the said quantity of molasses, namely 10170.40 qtls. was drained out on 24-11-1983. Thereafter R.T. 12 for molasses for the month of November 1983 showed that the said quantity of molasses had been cleared by the factory without payment of duty. Since the Central Excise Authorities felt that the said excisable goods were cleared on the permission from the State Excise Authorities and not the Centra...
Collector of Customs Vs. R.B. Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT521TriDel
1. None is present for the respondents in spite of notice of date of hearing issued on 11-9-1986 and sent by registered AD post. We proceed exparte against the respondents and have heard Shri Sundar Rajan, J.D.R for the appellant i.e. Collector of Customs, Bombay. Shri Sundar Rajan submitted that Phenol USP grade is not a drug and, therefore, would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982 as amended by Notification No. 174/83, dated 30-6-1983. He submitted that the Collector (Appeals) was in error in following the CEGAT's decision in the case of Fairdeal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. The Collector of Customs, Bombay [1984 (16) E.L.T. 368 (Tribunal) because this decision related to a period prior to amendment of the Notification on 30-6-1983 by deletion of the words 'drug intermediates' in the Notification. Shri Sundar Rajan, however, in fairness drew attention of the Bench to a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rakesh Enterpri...
Birla Jute Mfg. Company Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(11)ECC227
1. This is a Revision Application filed by the appellants before the Government of India. On the setting up of this Tribunal, it has been transferred here and is now being treated as an appeal before us.2. The matter pertains to refund claim of the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,09,563.72 which has been rejected by the department on the ground that it pertains to the period prior to the issue of Notification No.204/79 dated 6.6.79 which exempted such goods and, therefore, the claim could not be entertained.3. At the outset, when the matter was called, Dr. Gauri Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that they have already filed a Writ in the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which has been admitted and an interim order issued.Accordingly, it would be inadvisable for other Courts to proceed with hearing in respect of the same matter. The learned Departmental Representative Shri K.C. Sachar on the other hand stated that the issue involved...
Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC161
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.12.85 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Division by his order dated 11.6.84 classified Bourbon Cream manufactured by the appellants under Tariff Item No. 1A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff holding that Bourbon Cream contains cocoa powder, which is an essential ingredient of all types of chocolates as given in ISI specifications and that the coverage of TI 1A(4) was wide enough covering chocolates not otherwise specified. He also observed that the Bourbon Cream Biscuits are known as Chocolate Cream Biscuits in the market. By the same order, the Assistant Collector held that other items manufactured by the appellants namely Orange Cream, Custard Cream and Cottage Cream should be classified under Tariff Item No. 68 of Central Excise Tariff as they do not contain cocoa.2. The appellants filed an appeal with the Collector (Appeals) against the AC's order and con...
Collector of Customs Vs. T. Gulam Mahamood Assadi and Sons
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1986)(10)ECC215
1. The respondent, M/s. T. Gulam Mahamood Assadi and Sons presented shipping bill on 1.9.1981 for export of Coffee per S.S. Amado. On 2.9.1981 the shipping bill was amended to substitute the name of S.S.Macol Ace in the place of S.S. Amado. The duty was paid on 5.9.1981.The goods were shipped per S.S. Macol Ace, entry outwards for the said vessel being granted on 14.9.1981. Subsequently the respondents presented a refund claim for refund of the duty on the ground that on 10.9.81 the export duty on coffee was abolished. This was rejected by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 16.10.81. An appeal against the said order was allowed by the Appellate Collector under order dated 24.7.82. It is against the said order that the Collector of Customs has preferred the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. CDR for the appellant Collector and Shri Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for the respondents.3. The dates relevant for consideration of the issue before us have been set ou...
Collector of Customs Vs. M.S.P. Exports
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC358Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s M.S.P. Exports presented a shipping bill on 25-8-1981 for export of 55 packages of coffee to USA by S.S. State of Meghalaya. On 9-9-1981 the name of the ship in the shipping bill was amended to S.S. Jala Mohan at the request of the Company. Duty was paid on 28-8-1981 and the goods were shipped by S.S. Jala Mohan for which entry outwards was granted on 12-9-1981. The exporters then preferred a refund claim on the ground that export duty on the coffee exported stood abolished with effect from 10-9-1981. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that the shipping bill having been presented on 25-8-1981 that was the relevant date and not the date of amendment of the name of the vessel and, therefore, no refund was due. This order was set aside by the Appellate Collector under order dated 18-6-1982.The Collector of Customs, Madras has preferred the present appeal against the said order.2. We have heard Shri G.V. Naik, Jt. CDR for the appellant Collector, none a...
Chhajju Ram Vs. Lachhman Singh
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-30-1986
Reported in: 31(1987)DLT10
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) The appellant filed a suit claiming specific performance of the agreement of sale dated November 1, 1965 executed by respondent No. I in favor of the appellant Respondent No 2 was imp leaded as a party in the suit as he was recorded as co-owner of Khasra No. 489/421, Village Humayun Pur out of which respondent No. I is alleged to have agreed to sell a plot of land. Toe suit was dismissed by t:ie trial Court and the first appeal was also dismissed. The Courts below held that the agreement of sale, Ex. P-2 dated November 1, 1965 was an ambiguous document and, thereforee, specific performance was refused. It was further held that the plot agreed to be sold by respondent No. I was jointly owned by him and respondent No. 2 and so no decree for possession by way of specific performance could be granted. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court upholding the judgment and decree of the trial Court. (2) The following...
Coca-cola Export Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: (1986)LC452Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s. Coca Cola Export Corporation had been manufacturing, amongst other articles, Coca Cola concentrates and beverage bases. Show cause notice dated 17.9.80 was issued to them to the effect that they had failed to take out the necessary central excise licence for the manufacture of the said concentrates and beverage bases and had removed such excisable goods from 1.3.75 to 29.9.77 without observing the necessary central excise formalities They were called upon to show cause why duty payable on said goods, amonting in all to Rs. 68,39,033.33P should not be demanded from them and why no penalty should not be imposed on them. The show cause notice mentioned that the appropriate duty was to be determined under Rule 9-A(5) of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants replied denying the charges. They claimed that the Central Excise authorities had earlier sought to take proceedings on the basis that the concentrates and beverage bases fell under T.I.-1B CET but were not e...
Mohinder Kaur and anr. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1986
Reported in: (1987)(10)LC273Tri(Delhi)
1. Both the captioned appeals are directed against the common Order-in-Original No. 50/84 dated 2.7.84 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport, Delhi absolutely confiscating the seized goods and also imposing various penalties on both the appellants as well as on Shri Manohar Singh and Shri Hans Raj.2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant for the purpose of these appeals are that on 15.5.80 the Customs officers concerned intercepted both the appellants - holders of Indian Passports. As a result of examination of the baggage of appellant Avtar Singh, miscellaneous goods of foreign origin collectively valued at Rs. 20,186/- in addition to old and used clothes were recovered. Since the appellant Avtar Singh could not produce any proof of the lawful import of the said goods the same were seized by the Customs Officers under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same had been imported into India illicitly in contravention of the provisi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »