Delhi Court March 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.
Vaz Forwarding Private Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT573TriDel
1. Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. has filed a Revision Application on behalf of the importers Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 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 the appellants had imported parts of Spectrophotometer vide Bill of Entry No.l260D dated 20.5.86.The Revenue had assessed the same on merits as declared by the appellants in the Bill of Entry. Subsequently the appellants filed a refund application claiming that the goods be assessed under heading 90.25(1) as parts of Spectrophotometer. The Ld. Assistant Collector had rejected the appellant's refund claim and had held that the original assessment was correct. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Customs. He had confirmed the findings of the Assistant Collector and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved fr...
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT649aTriDel
1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the value of the 'reel centre core' on which paper is reeled or wound should be includible in the assessable value of the paper for the purposes of assessment of Central Excise duty.2. By their letter dated 29-12-1986, the appellants have waived their right of personal hearing and have sent written submissions.3. We have heard the learned representative of the department and considered the written submissions of the appellants and the record.The point at issue is specifically covered by Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. We reproduce it below :- "(i) where the goods are delivered at the time of removal in a packed condition, includes the cost of such packing except the cost of the packing which is of a durable nature and is returnable by the buyer to the assessee. Explanation. - In this Sub-section 'packing' means the wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel or wrap beem or any other thing in which...
O.E.N. India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT565TriDel
1. O.E.N. India Ltd., Cochin had filed a revision application to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 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 the appellants had imported stainless steel flat wire under Bill of Entry No. 437/28-10-1980 valued at Rs. 47185.50 (CIF). The invoice produced for the clearance of the subject consignment showed the description of the goods as "prime Hard Drawn" stainless steel flat wire with round edge type III Sandvik IIR 51 (301) 0.008 +_ 0.00028" thick, 0.010" _. 0.00032" thick 0.006" __ 0.0002" thick etc. in 0.187" wide coils. As per Notes l(o) of Chapter 73 of BTN wire is defined as cold drawn products of solid section of any cross-sectional shape. The letter dated 30-11-1979 of M/s. OAK Industries Inc., Electronic Division, showed the ite...
Collector of Customs Vs. R.K. Aggarwal and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC236Tri(Delhi)
1. In response to notice of hearing, the respondents by their communication dated 19.8.1986 for the hearing dated 31.10.1986, intimated that the amount of refund being small, they do not consider it worthwhile to engage an Advocate and travel to Delhi to appear for personal hearing. Further request was to decide the appeal on the basis of evidence on record and arguments put forward by them in their absence. Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative for the appellant--Collector of Customs, Bombay, was therefore, heard.2. The respondents imported a consignment of Polyester Plastic supported (on PVC sheets). This was assessed to basic customs duty under Heading 39.01/06 of CTA 1975 and Additional duty applicable under Item 15-A(1) of Central Excise Tariff i.e. at the rate of 22.5%.3. After clearance of the goods, the respondents applied for refund of additional duty on the strength of Notification Nos. 71/71-CE dated 29.5.1971 as subsequently amended and No. 72/71-CE dated 29....
H.D. Shourie Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi219; 32(1987)DLT73; 1987(13)DRJ225; 1987RLR243
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the demand of electricity charges amounting to Rs. 1183.36 which has been raised by revised bill dated 1st November, 1980 in respect of the period from 11th January, 1973 to 29th September, 1973.(2) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner of House No. A-31, West End, New Delhi. During the years 1970 to 1973 the said house had been let out to different tenants. There are different electricity meters which are installed in the said house. One meter which was fixed during that period was Meter No. 18 K-513626-PD/WEC, for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as 'Meter C'. This meter, I am told, pertains to the supply of electricity to the first floor of the house in question.(3) On 25th October, 1977 the petitioner received an electricity bill for Rs. 3845.92. The bill merely indicated that the demand was 'Assessed 24037 units from 20th March 1970 to 21st September 1973 base 21st September 1973 ...
Usha Micro-processors Controls Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: (1988)(16)LC23Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in original No. 11-C/86 dated 16.7.1986 passed by Collector of Customs, New Delhi.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant imported a consignment of inegrated circuits under cover of Bill of Entry No.12130 dated 7, 3,1986 valued at Rs. 5,50,639/-. The appellant had declared the goods as large scale integrated circuits and sought clearance under OGL Appendix 6, Pt. I Serial No. 565 (6) of Import and Export Policy, 1985-88. The appel lant had a so claimed benefit of Notification No. 67/85 dated 17.3.1985 and n terms of the aid notification had claimed assessment of the duty at the rate of 25%. The appellant had paid the duty of Rs. 1,37,660 under challan No. 86/10291 dated 13.3.1986 on the busts of sell-assessment of goods under Notification No. 67/85. On scrutiny of the documents, the revenue authorities discovered that certificate No. 014 dated 24.4.1985 issused by the Department of Electronics and submitte...
Indian Plywood Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)ECC209
1. These four appeals arise out of a common order-in-appeal and involve a common issue for determination. Hence they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of the cases may be briefly stated. The appellants imported four consignments of timber from Burma. These were assessed by the customs authorities to auxiliary duty of customs (leviable in terms of the annual Finance Acts) at the rate of 30% ad valorem in terms of Customs Notification No. 126/84 dated 11-5-1984. The appellants cleared the goods on payment of the auxiliary duty so assessed. Later, the appellants were served with notices calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 3,09,113.30 should not be demanded from them on the ground that auxiliary duty of customs should have been charged at 40% ad valorem and not 30% ad valorem as charged at the time the goods were assessed to duty and allowed clearance. In due course, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay confirmed the demands b...
Casting Combines Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT501TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Pune.2. The brief facts of the case are the appellants manufactured castings and during the process of manufacture of castings, scrap in the form of skull scrap and runners and risers came into existence and same was captively consumed for re-melting or, in other words, scrap was re-cycled. No duty was paid on the scrap generated and used in the factory. The learned Consultant for the appellants pointed out that the duty was demanded for the period from 1-5-1979 to 4-6-1981 and that show cause notice was issued in the matter on 25-1-1982. He has pleaded that the demand was time-barred. He has stated that the longer period for recovery of the duty has been invoked in terms of Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He has cited 1984 (18) ELT 319 in the case of Lattubhai Amichand Ltd., Bombay v.Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, wherein, according to him, it has b...
Prestige Engineering India (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC177
1. The prayers in the application made by the applicants M/s. Prestige Engineering India (P) Ltd. are (1) to direct the respondent-Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and his subordinates to permit the applicants to clear repaired cops from its factory without payment of Central Excise Duty and (2) to grant interim stay of the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice No. Misc./PRES. ENGG./Noida-II/82/873, dated 6-10-1986.The appeal of these applicants was disposed of by Order No. 315/86-D, dated 21-5-1986. Under the said order the impugned order of the Collector was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Collector for re-adjudication in the light of the observations and directions contained in the said order. The applicants point out that this order appears to have been misconstrued by the respondent-Collector and his subordinates as if the entire issue was to be readjudicated without reference to the findings of the Tribunal in the abovesaid order on the matters in issue in th...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (No. 1)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-1987
Reported in: [1988]173ITR87(Delhi)
1. After hearing both counsel, we are of the opinion that the first of the questions sought to be referred is a question of law in view of the Explanationn introduced in section 37(2A) with retrospective effect from1976. In our opinion, the other questions are all questions of fact. 2. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have found that a part of the expenses incurred on V. H. Dalmia relating to M/s. Delton Properties Ltd. was met out of the monies provided by the foreign company and that there was no reason to disallow a part of the expenditure met by the Indian company on the foreign tour as admittedly the director had attended to the affairs of the Indian company during the tour. On question No. 3, the extra shift allowance has been allowed only in respect of plant and machinery installed in the factory on estimated basis. So far as question No. 4 is concerned the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has given detaile...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »