Delhi Court December 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.
Nav Bharat Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-31-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC351Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these three appeals. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order.2. The appellants imported some leather tanning machinery from M/s.Investa, Czechoslovakia and M/s. Turner, U.K. for setting up a project in India. They had obtained a proforma invoice from Investa on 30-5-1975. However, because of some delay involved in making arrangement with the financial institutions and licencing authorities, the appellants could open the L/C with Investa only on 29-8-1975. In between, Investa had brought out a new price list on 1-8-1975 according to which the prices of their machinery had more than doubled. The appellants say that Investa agreed to supply their machinery as per the old price list of 15-11-1974, as per the proforma invoice dated 30-5-1975. In the case of imports from U.K. the appellants obtained the proforma invoice from Turner on 11-7-1973. But they could open the Letter of Credit only on 3-9-1975. In between, ...
Uma Arts Studio Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT115TriDel
1. M/s. Uma Arts Studio, Puliyarakonam, P.O. Vilappilsala, Trivandrum had filed a revision application to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from Order-in-appeal No. C27AP/85/81, dated 11-1- 1982/31-5- 1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. The said revision application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Section 131B of the Customs Act, 1962 to be disposed of as an appeal.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Uma Arts Studio had imported one Arriflex-35 IIC BV Camera with accessories under B/F No.105/7-7-80 and Sound tapes Nagra complete accessories for sound tapes under B/C No. 400/28-10-80 through Cochin Port against Import Licence No. 2034782, dated 14-2- 1980 issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras endorsed as 'Project Import for assessment under heading 84.60 of Section XVI of CTA' and claimed the registration of the contract and asse...
Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC57Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals, involving common question of facts and law were heard together and are being decided together. The appellants, stated to be a limited company, manufacture, inter alia, rickshaw and taxi meters. They appointed M/s. Anand Traders, a partnership concern as their distributors throughout India. The appellants also directly sell their meters to Industrial consumers like Bajaj Auto Limited. Shri U.V.Vaidya, Managing Director of Diamond Clock Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. thereinafter referred to as Diamond) holds about 12% of shares in Diamond and 75% interest in Anand Traders. Shri Vaidya's mother holds nearly 25% of interest in Anand Traders and about 48% shares of Diamond. The sale pattern of Diamond is that 70% of their production is sold to Anand Traders and 30% to others. The prices charged by Diamond to Anand Traders are, on an average, about 9.17% less than the prices to others.2. The Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice to the appellants threate...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Fertilizer Corporation of India
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT398TriDel
1. The question to be decided in the case is whether Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) used for drying rock phosphate and gypsum, can be treated to have been "used as feed stock for the manufacture of fertilizer" and was eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 147/74, dated 03.10.74 read with Notification No. 356/77, dated 16.12.77. Under these Notifications the Govt. exempted Furnace Oil and Heavy Petroleum stock which included LSHS falling under Item 10 & 11A of the Central Excise Tariff intended for use as Feed Stock in the manufacture of fertilizer from the whole of Central Excise duty leviable thereon, provided that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise that the same were so used, and the procedure set out in Chapter-X of the Central Excise Rules was followed. The respondents used 275 M/Tons of LSHS for drying rock phosphate and gypsum which were used in the manufacture of fertilizer. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has...
Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(34)ELT393TriDel
1. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Hunsur Plywood Works Ltd., Hunsur (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) imported at Mangalore Port a consignment of 635 pieces of what was described in the Bill of Entry No. 000256, dated 19-2-1987 filed for customs clearance as "Teak wood roughly squared and half squared but not further manufactured". The appellants claimed preferential concessional duty assessment for the goods in terms of Customs Notification No.280/76, dated 2-8-1976 being goods of Burma origin and in terms of Serial No. 23(2) of Customs Notification No. 311/86, dated 13-5-1986.The Customs authorities, however, noticed that the goods were described as "Teak wood squares" in the import documents furnished by the suppliers, namely, specification list, country of origin certificate-cum-invoices, bill of lading etc. On examination, the customs authorities found the goods to be "Dressed squares" and not as they were described in the Bill of Entry. The Depart...
Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)LC292Tri(Delhi)
1. Hindustan Tyres Pvt. Ltd., Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. M-1350/B-I/381/85, dated 18.7.1975 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is holding L-4 licence in respect of Tariff Item 68 and are manufacturing Camel Back falling under T.I. 16A(ii) [Should read T.I. 16A(2)]. The appellant is not selling camel back but utilising for the retreading of old tyres and have been paying duty on the said item on the assessable value on the basis of costing. Accordingly, price list filed by them in proforma VIB as laid down under Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975.Alongwith the price list the appellant was furnishing the details of costing, duly certified by their auditor. However, since the company's balance sheet for the year was not ready at the time of filing of price lists, the company had been showing a notional margin of profit of 5% or 10% as the case may be, over...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. American Remedies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT157TriDel
1. Two issues to be decided by us in this appeal are (i) whether Amegyl Suspension manufactured by the respondents was eligible for the exemption of central excise duty under Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3-5-1969 as amended and (ii) whether the demand for duty raised by the Department was barred by limitation.2. Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3-5-1969 as amended, exempts Patent or Proprietary medicines falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14E, (i) if the medicine contains one or more of the ingredients speci fied in the schedule appended to the Notification; and (ii) if the medicine contains other than the ingredients specified in the said schedule, such ingredients are pharmaceutical necessities such as diluents, disintegrating agents, stabilizers and preservatives, moistening agents lubricants, buffering agents and such pharmaceutical necessities are therapeutically inert and do not interfere with the therapeutic or prophylactic activity of the ingredient or ingredients sp...
Har NaraIn Vs. Financial Commissioner, Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Dec-27-1987
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT98
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Har Narain has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated April 14, 1975, passed by the Consolidation Officer-Respondent No. 4, appellant order dated August .18, 1975, made by the Settlement Officer- Respondent No. 3, order dated December 6, 1975, passed by the Additional Collector-Respondent No. 2 and the order dated September 3, 1976, made in revision by the Financial Commissioner- Respondent No. 1.(2) Facts, in brief, are that the consolidation of land holdings was carried out at village Kangan Heri in accordance with the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. According to the petitioner, the consolidation proceedings were completed and the petitioner was allotted Kila Nos. 23 & 24 of Rectangle No. 30 in repartition proceedings and he was given possession of the same in the year 1971 itself. He has further alleged that he has installed a tubewell in Kila No. 24. It was averred that the consolidat...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ansal Properties and Industries
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD1(Delhi)
1. This is an application Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, moved by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-Ill, New Delhi praying that the following questions, stated to be of law and to arise out of an order dated 24th June, 1985 passed by this Tribunal in ITA No. 788/Del./C4 for asst. year 1973-74, be referred for the opinion of Hon'ble the High Court : 1. Whether, on the facts and. in the circumstances of the case,, the Tribunal was right in holding that income from flats constructed on the plots owned by the assessee was not taxable in the hands of the assessee-company 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the flats situated on plots registered in the name of the assessee-company were not owned by it? 2. The office reported that the reference application was barred by 544 days as the order had been served on the Commissioner on the 7th August, 1985, while the present application was moved in this Tribu...
Metro Exports Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-22-1987
Reported in: (2003)(161)ELT989TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Customs, Cochin ordered the appellants to pay customs duty amounting to Rs. 5,53,971.81 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on them. It is against this order, that the present appeal has been filed.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Metro Exports, Cochin (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) were issued an Advance Licence No. P/L/0342075, dated 14-6-1983 for import inter alia of 32 Metric Tonnes of white cardboard, other than ivory board, subject to the condition that the appellants shall export frozen shrimps etc.packed in packing material made inter alia of white cardboard for an F.O.B. value of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. A Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Book No. 005166, dated 24-6-1983 was also issued to the appellants listing the materials (of c.i.f. value of Rs. 3,74,000/-) allowed to be imported duty free, one of them being 32 M.Ts. of white cardboard, other than ivory board. In part 'E' of the DEEC B...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »