Delhi Court October 1987 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.
Phoolson Foundry Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT654TriDel
1. Aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut dated 16.4.84, the appellants have filed this appeal.2. The appellants manufacture AD V (Animal Drawn Vehicles) axles and parts thereof. The appellants contend that these items are exempted under Notification 55/75-C.E.3. On 263.83, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants raising a demand of Rs. 1,29,428.34 for the clearances of Item 68 goods during the financial year 1977-78. The department's case is that the appellants had availed the exemption under Notification 176/77-C.E.even though the goods were not exempted from payment of duty.4. In their reply, the appellants stated that the AD V axles manufactured by them and falling under T.1.68 were exempted under Notification 55/75-C.E. as they are component parts of carts which are agricultural implements. In support of their contention, they relied on judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Saks Tax v. Rati Ram Harmonium (80 U.P. S...
Collector of Customs Vs. Coromondal Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC226
1. The proceedings initiated by the aforesaid revision show cause notice issued by the Central Government under the then Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 have, on transfer of the proceedings to this Tribunal, been taken up as if they were appeals filed by the department.2. These are 10 appeals. (Actually, only 9 appeals were required to be filed since only 9 Orders-in-original in all were involved). The appeals involve common facts and issues. They relate to the same respondents and were argued before us together. This combined order will dispose of all of them.3. The nine applications for condonation of delay being for the supplementary appeals, they were not opposed by the respondents. We allowed the applications and condoned the delay.4. After hearing both sides, we have allowed the Misc. Application of the Department for placing on record certain additional documents also.5. Coming to the appeals, the facts, in brief, are that the respondents are manufacturers of fertilizer...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(14)LC418Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents obtained LSHS at concessional assessment under Notification No. 147/74-CE dated 30.10.1974 for the purpose of use of the same as feedstock in the manufacture of fertilizer. The respondents manufactured ammonia utilising the feedstock and transferred this ammonia to another factory where, it is stated, ammonia was utilised for the manufacture of fertilizer. The movement of the LSHS to the respondents' factory was under Chapter X Procedure. The Collector (Appeals) held that inasmuch as the ammonia had been utilised for the manufacture of fertilizer, the requirement of Notification No. 147/74-CE can be taken to have been fulfilled and set aside the demand raised against the respondents by the lower authority for the reason that the respondents had not manufactured fertilizer in their factory out o...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Fordham Pressings (India) Pvt.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT721TriDel
1. Show cause notice dated 13-3-1981 was issued to respondent M/s.Fordham Pressings (India) Pvt. Ltd. as to why the duty paid dies brought back and reconditioned by them should not be considered as a fresh manufacture and as to why duty on the past clearances of reconditioned dies amounting to Rs. 1,65,380.64 should not be recovered from them for the period 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. After adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 24-8-1982 confirmed the demand. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 3-3-1983. This order was a consolidated order in respect of two appeals by the present respondents. The present appeal is against the said order so far as it related to the order of Assistant Collector dated 24-8-1982 mentioned above.2. The respondents have intimated by letter dated 24-9-1987 that they shall not be appearing in person. None has appeared on their behalf during the hearing. We have perused records and heard Shri ...
Collector of Customs Vs. R.K. Agarwal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT509TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents imported printed PVC sheets and claimed benefit of Notification No. 342/76 and claimed refund of duty paid in excess of the exempted rate of duty in terms of the said Notification. The Assistant Collator rejected the refund claim on the following two grounds: (2) PVC sheets are manufactured articles from the raw material obtained after polymerisation and co-polymerisation." 3. The Collector (Appeals) on appeal filed by the respondents accepted the respondent's plea and held that the necessary certificate for the purpose of claiming benefit of concession the goods being of Korean origin, was correctly filed. He also held that in terms of Serial No.6(1)(c) of the Table to the said notification PVC sheets imported were covered by the description of the goods which were eligible for the benefit of the notification. T...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gayatri Glass Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC26
1. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Gayatri Glass Works (the respondents) cleared from their factory "Bhagar", i.e., molten and broken glass. In view of the changes in the description of Item No. 23A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET) with effect from 1-3-1979, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Agra, considered that the aforesaid "Bhagar" also attracted duty.Accordingly, after holding adjudication proceedings, he passed an order on 1-7-1981 demanding Rs. 83,244.00 from the respondents on account of "Bhagar" cleared during the period from 1-3-1979 to 31-3-1980 without payment of duty. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's order by holding that broken glass was a waste material generated during the process of manufacture of articles of glass and, therefore, not excisable. It is this order that is challenged by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, in the present appeal.2. The respondents did not appear during the...
A.S.V. Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT140TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Amaravathi Sri Venkateswara Paper Mills Ltd., Madathukulam (the appellants) imported at Cochin Port a consignment of 257 bales (50 Metric Tonnes) white waste paper from Hongkong. Bill of Entry No. 215, dated 20.1.1982 was filed for its clearance. On examination, the consignment was found to contain what the customs authorities held to be good white plain paper and cut sizes of art paper which could be used as stationery and for printing. These, according to the customs authorities, did not qualify for the description "waste paper". While that part of the consignment which was considered to be genuine "waste paper" was permitted to be cleared under Open General Licence, the aforesaid goods (3036 kgs.) were detained for action under the Import Control Law and for charge of duty. The value of the goods was estimated by the customs at Rs. 30,000/- c.i.f. on the basis of available documents and market inquiry which also is stated to h...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. West Glass Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT710TriDel
1. Since the two appeals arrise out the same order in appeal (under which two appeals had been disposed of), the appeals were heard together.2. It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail since the issue arising for determination in the two appeals stands concluded under earlier decisions including one of the Supreme Court.3. The issue is whether Head Light Glass Covers for use in motor vehicles are classifiable under Item 23-A(4) or Item 68 of the CET.Under the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) had classified them under Item 68-CET. The Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur has sought to set aside the said order. This Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Emkay Glass Works (Excise Appeal 1875/83-D) held under order No. 451 to 462 of 1984-D, dated 7-8-1984 that the Head Light Glass Covers are classifiable under Item 68-CET. The appeal against the said decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5001 to 5012 of 1984 under order dated...
Fine Auto Products (India) and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT384; 1988(35)ELT466(Del)
Yogeshwar Dayal, C.J.(1) This writ petition is at the show cause stage. Show cause notice was directed to be issued as far back as on 27th January, 1986 by H.L. Anand & Sunanda Bhandre, JJ. Though at the earlier stage. Mr. Siri Pal Singh, Advocate had represented Miss Anita Sachdeva, Advocate who has been appearing on behalf of the respondents but despite repeated opportunities nobody appeared and the petition was listed before the Court. We have again heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Advocate for the petitioner but we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for admission of the writ petition. The writ petition itself is directed against appellate order dated 10th December, 1985 of Government of India, Ministry of Commerce (Appellate Committee Cell). Petitioner had obtained two import licenses dated 21st November, 1979 and 10th November, 1980. (2) In order to verify the correctness of the value of past consumption as indicated in their applications for the grant of aforesaid licen...
Suraj Besan and Rice Mills Vs. Food Corporation of India
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Delhi224; 1987(2)ARBLR240(Delhi); 33(1987)DLT401; 1988(14)DRJ176
S.N. Sapra, J. (1) Plaintiff has filed the present suit thereby claiming a decree of declaration to the effect that there is no legal, valid and binding contract for the sale and purchase of 6200 M.Ts. of damaged paddy as per acceptance telegram dated July 22, 1983 and that this does not bring about a valid, legal and binding contract.(2) Briefly, the facts are that plaintiff firm is registered with defendant vide Registration No. 25/82 dated January 27, 1982. It is alleged that under this registration, the annual requirement of the plaintiff has been assessed at 15,000 quintals (1500 M.Ts.). As such plaintiff can quote only for this registered quantity. Regional Office of defendant at Chandigarh invited tenders for the purchase and removal of damaged foodgrains declared fit for cattle/poultry feed etc. Plaintiff submitted their tenders through Sh. Niranjan Lal in the prescribed form. the tender submitted by plaintiff, was not signed by all the partners of plaintiff firm. Tenders were ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »