Delhi Court February 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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Intercon Engineers (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC45Tri(Delhi)
1. These are two appeals filed by the department. They arise out of two separate Orders-in-Appeals as stated above. Although, the appellant Collector filed only one consolidated appeal, the said appeal has been given two appeal numbers for the sake of record and since no fees are required to be paid by the department. The two appeals seek restoration of the following two demands for differential central excise duty :- 1. Demand for Rs. 1,10,620.96. This demand has been set aside by the Collector (Appeals) on the ground of time bar ; (2) The demand for Rs. 49,431.41. This demand was included in the show cause notice. In his Order-in-Original, the Assistant Collector upheld the merits of this demand but inadvertantly he omitted to confirm the demand specifically in the final Order portion. Though the department had filed a separate appeal before the Collector (Appeals) for restoration of this demand, Collector (Appeals) did not advert to it but set aside the department's appeal on the g...
Telco Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC609Tri(Delhi)
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India, on transfer to the Tribunal is being treated as an appeal.2. The appellants manufacture inter alia Commercial Motor Vehicles covered by Central Excise Tariff Item. 34. Union Budget was presented to the Parliament on 19.6.1980. On 18.6.1980, the appellants submitted A.R.I. application in respect of 135 chassis for removal on the Budget Day. These chassis were in existence and were accounted for in the R.G.I. on 18.6.1980. Out of 135 chassis, 11 chassis were in the Bonded Store Room and 124 were under inspection and were in the finishing room. On the Budget Day, the appellants were anxious to clear 11 chassis out of the 135 chassis. The appellants were informed that unless the duty was paid on all 135 chassis, the removal of 11 chassis will not be allowed. The Union Budget introduced 5% of the Basic Excise Duty as Special excise duty. The appellants removed in June, 1980, nine out of the eleven chassis on payment of speci...
Mela Singh Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-10-1987
Reported in: 1987(12)DRJ265
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition under Article- 226 of the Constitution is to the cancellation of an allotment of plot of land which had been made in favor of the petitioner. (2) The petitioner, before he bad .retired from the Army, is stated to have purchasedl and measuring 1017 square yards in Village Basai Darapur in the Union Territory of Delhi. This land was, however, notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was issued on 13/11/1959. Subsequently this land was acquired. (3) The respondents had a policy for allotting alternative plots of land if a person's land had been acquired under the scheme for large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in De (4) It is alleged that the petitioner then made afresh representation for allotment of a plot of land. His application was considered and on 25/6/1979 the Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2, wrote to the Delhi Development Authority (respondent No. 1.) informing th...
Shri Siri Ram Bansal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC265Tri(Delhi)
1. C/ROM/No. 30/86-A has been filed by Sh. Siri Ram Bansal and C/ROM/No. 37/86-A has been filed by Sh. N.S. Bhatnagar.2. As common question of facts and law are involved in both these applications they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.3. A brief narration of the prior events would be necessary in order to assess merits of the contentions raised by the applicants.4. The two applicants imported two Toyota Carona 1600 DLX Sedans. They presented the manufacturer's invoice at the time of the assessment. The Assessing Authority accepted the invoice value and after adding freight, insurance and landing charges to the FOB value stated in the invoice, determined the duty payable. The claim of the applicants to 15% discount on the manufacturer's invoice was rejected by the Assistant Collector. Their appeals to the Collector of Customs, Bombay also failed. They moved the Tribunal alongwith two other. Appeal Nos.379/84A, 357/84A (filed by Shri N.S. Bhatnagar) and...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Indian Turpentine and ResIn Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT678TriDel
1. A common issue is involved in these ce appeals of the department.They are, therefore, being disposed of by this combined er.2. The common issue involved is whether the sale price of primary bulk turpen-charged by the respondents from their customer M/s. Camphor & Allied Products ited was influenced by any extra-commercial consideration.3. The goods fall under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. By virtue of the exemption Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30.4.1975, the goods could be assessed at their invoice value subject to certain conditions.The conditions relevant for our discussion are as follows:- "(iv) the invoice price is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship whether by contract or otherwise between the manufacturer or any person associated in business with the manufacturer and the buyer or any person associated in business with the buyer other than the relationship created by sale of the aforesaid goods; (v) no part of the proceeds of the ...
Mehra Electric Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(28)ELT388TriDel
1. In this appeal, which was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government, the appellants have challenged the order of the lower authorities demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 17,033.85 under Tariff Item 33-B of Central Excise Tariff on 22,714 Kgs. of single bare aluminium wire above 10 SWG valued at Rs. 3,37,355.60 cleared from their factory without payment of duty under Rule 50 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 during the period from 30.11.1977 to 31.5.1978. The notice demanding the duty was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, MOR IX, Calcutta VII Division vide Notice No. 69 dated 31.5.1978. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta VII Division by his order-in-original No. 13/33-B/DD/78 dated 29.1.1979 and the said order was upheld by the Appellate Collector in the impugned order.2. We have heard the argument's of Shri Prem Nath Mehra for the appellants. He has argued that in the classification li...
Packam and Co. and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a case of a Special Bench appeal where the two learned members constituting the Bench differed on one point. The point of difference, as formulated by them, was as follows :- "Both of us agree that the order of the lower authorities should be set aside. There is no difference on the substantial disposal of the appeal. A point of difference is 'whether after setting aside the orders of the Appellate Collector and Assistant Collector, an order dismissing the appeal could also be passed'." 2. Copies of the separate orders of the two learned members and of the point of difference as formulated by them were forwarded to the two appellants and to the respondent, and they were informed that the hearing on the point of difference before the President would take place on 21.1.1987. Both the appellants acknowledged receipt of the hearing notice, but requested that the hearing might be fixed on 9.2.1987, that is today, when other appeals filed by them were coming up before the Tribuna...
Prem Singh Chawla Vs. Director of Enforcement
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-09-1987
Reported in: [1988]64CompCas877(Delhi); 1987CriLJ1579; 1987(12)DRJ303; 1987(12)ECC35; ILR1987Delhi151
M.K. Chawla, J.(1) On receipt of certain information about the contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulations by Prem Singh Chawla, the present appellant, his residential premises near Panipat was searched by the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate on 19-1-1971, as a result of which, apart from Rs. 4.600.00 in cash, several documents, account books, diaries, etc. were seized. The appellant was interrogated with reference to the seized documents on that very day and subsequently also. On the basis of these statements, seized documents and further enquiries made from various quarters the appellant was issued the following three memos :- 1.Memo No. Ill (12)/71(SCN-1) dated 6-1-72 for having received Rs. 3,68,000.00 is contravention of Section 5(l)(aa) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 2.Memo No. Iii (12)/71 (SCN-II) dated 6-1-72 for making 51 payments amounting to Rs. 2,54,700.00 in contravention of Section 5(l)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 3.Memo No. Ill (12)/71 (SCN...
Dr. (Mrs.) M. Satyavani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT467TriDel
1. The captioned appeal was originally filed as a revision application before the Central Government which, under Section 131.B of the Customs Act, 1962, has come as transferred proceedings to this Tribunal for disposal as if it were an appeal filed before it.2. The dispute involved in the present case is whether the E.C.G.machine imported by the appellant is eligible for duty free entry in terms of Rule 4 of the Transfer of residence Rules, 1978. The lower authorities denied the concession. The Appellate Collector, in her impugned order dated 29-4-1982, has held that since the E.C.G.equipment is not "ordinarily used always", that is, it is not required "for day to day use ordinarily and not occasionally", the denial of the free entry of the equipment in terms of Rule 4 of the Transfer of Residence Rules was correct.3. When the matter was taken up, Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R., submitted that this appeal would be for the South Regional Bench to hear and dispose of. We, however, do not ...
Collector of Customs and Central Vs. Shri Balkrishan
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC325Tri(Delhi)
1. Not satisfied with the impugned Order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty passed by the Assistant Collector, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrops: Preventive Staff on 20.6.82, apprehended the respondent after he had taken delivery of three bales from the Railway Station and on examination of the contents of these bales 333 pieces of garments of different textures, sizes, designs, and colours valued at Rs. 10,0467- were recovered. Since according to the Revenue the respondent failed to produce any evidence in support of the lawful acquisition/ possession etc., of the said goods, said to be of foreign origin, the same were seized. After the usual adjudication proceedings, the Assistant Collector ordered for the confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on a payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of confiscation besides...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »