Delhi Court April 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.
infosys Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-18-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT642TriDel
1. Infosys Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order No. C25AP/63/1986 dated 8-8-1986 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant had imported Magnetic Tape Drives and Winchester Drives valued at Rs. 15,29,857/- vide Bill of Entry No. 2258 dated 24-2-84. The appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 237/83. The appellant had claimed that the Magnetic Tape Drives and Winchester Drivers were nothing but machines for transcribing data onto data media in coded form falling at S. No. 2 of the table annexed to the said notification. The Assistant Collector had allowed the concession under notification tentatively against bond No. S-5/9/84. The condition of the bond was such that if the goods proved to be machine for transcribing data onto data media in coded form falling in the table annexed to the said notification than the bond would be void and would have no effect. Otherwise, the s...
Suresh Chander Anand Vs. Collector of Customs and Central
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC753Tri(Delhi)
1. The following alleged questions of law have been proposed by the applicant said to have arisen out of Order No. A/517/86-NRB dated 8-10-1986 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. CD/DEL/2476/83-NRB for being referred to the High Court. "1. That the Rules (20) of the rules to the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal provides that in the event of the non-appearance of the appellant on the date fixed the appeal/application would result in dismissal in default of the appeal and not application? 2. That the Rule (20) further stipulates that Hon'ble Tribunal, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits. The appeal having not been heard on merits, would the present order under Reference survive? 3. That the penalty is not a revenue so that a condition can be imposed while ordering dispensation. 4. That the order fixing reduced amount as pre-deposit looking into the undue hardship caused to the appellant is an interlocutory order as such an order is subje...
Collector of Customs Vs. R.K. Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT518TriDel
1. All these appeals involve common questions and were therefore heard together and are being disposed of together.2. The facts relevant to the issues are undisputed and can be stated briefly. The importers, some of whom are appellants here and some of who are respondents, imported Acrylic Plastic Scrap after 1-3-1982 when Tariff item 15A-CET was amended and before 22-7-1986 (when a new Central Excise Tariff was introduced). The Customs authorities initially charged additional duty of customs classifying the goods for that purpose under item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The importers appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In some cases the assessment was confirmed (the importers are appellants before us) and in other cases the Collector allowed the appeals and ordered additional duty to be charged under item 68 of CET (The revenue filed appeals in such cases). The question before us is, therefore, whether the imported goods 'Acrylic Plastic Scrap' are liable to counte...
Standard Motor Products India Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT646TriDel
1. The question that arises in this appeal, originally filed as a Revision Application before the Government of India and transferred to this Tribunal for disposal as an appeal, is whether the amount of Rs. 1,000/- realised by the appellants at the time of clearance of motor vehicles should be treated as part of the assessable value or not. The appellants, well known manufacturers of motor vehicles, entered into an agreement with D.G.S. & D. for sale of their vehicles. The agreement stipulated two kinds of buyers, namely, Defence Indentors and non-defence civilian in-dentors. Due to commercial reasons the appellants used to raise the price by Rs. 1,000/-when the vehicles were supplied to the Civilian Indentors. This amount was intended to cover the subsequent after sale service of the vehicles. The appellants used to transfer the same amount, namely Rs. 1,000/-, to the dealers. The Central Excise Department ap-proved the price lists filed by the appellants. The value of the vehicl...
Steel Corporation of Punjab and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC39
1. By his order C.No. 2-CE/ APPEL/CHG/REV/83, dated 25-4-1986 the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) New Delhi decided 37 appeals in respect of the assessment of steel products of thickness less than 3 mm and width of 75 mm or more. The period was prior to 1-8-1983. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala approved 37 classifications filed by the manufacturers of iron and steel products and classified them as bars excisable under Item 26AA(ia). The Collector not being satisfied with the classification, caused appeals to be filed against these orders under Section 35E of the Central Excises and Salt Act before the Collector (Appeals), who decided that assessment should be under Item 26AA(iii); these appeals impugn that order of the Collector (Appeals).2. Before the arguments started, the learned counsel for the department said that an order passed by the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(4) on an application by the Collector of Central Excise is not appealable to...
Sree Srinivasan Foundry and ors. Vs. Collector of Central Excises
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(11)LC817Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured and cleared mono-bloc pump-sets. The common point of dispute in these 20 appeals is whether the central excise duty on the electric motor portion of the pump-set, which was realised by the appellants from their customers through .a separate entry in the sale invoice for the pump-set, should be added to the assessable value of the pump-set for charge of central excise duty thereon. The period involved generally is from 1-10-75 to 30-9-76.2. We have heard both the parties, perused the record and given the matter our earnest consideration. In the case of T.R. Industries, we have particularly examined their written submissions in view of their letter dated 27-3-1987 requesting us to decide their appeal without their personal presence.3. It is now the settled position in law that the full intrinsic value of an article must include the cost of all its raw materials and components, vide the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Empire Industries Limited, 1986(2...
H.M.T. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT734TriDel
1. The goods imported by the appellants in respect of which the dispute arose before the lower authorities was what is described as 'watch glasses'. The appellants had claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 240/78 dated 30-12-1978.This claim was rejected by the lower authorities and hence the present appeal.2. We have heard Shri C.L. Beri, Advocate for the appellants and Shri K.G. Sachar, Departmental Representative for the respondent.3. It had been submitted by the appellants before the Appellate Collector that the present goods though described as 'watch glasses', were, in fact, not made of glass but of acrylic sheets. There is no specific finding of the Appellate Collector on this particular contention though the Collector states that 'watch glasses' fell under heading 70.01/16 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The Assistant Collector's order is anything but a speaking order and but for filling in certain particulars is a cyclostyled pro...
Assam Valley Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT661TriDel
1. In de novo adjudication order passed, ac-, cording to Tribunal's order, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Tinsukhia, refused the deduction of bank interest, insurance premium and handling charges etc.from the price so as to arrive at the assessable value. The Assistant Collector purportedly followed the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Bombay Tyre International and Ors. v. Union of India (reported in 1983 ELT 869 SC). The Collector (Appeals), Central Excise rejected the appeal recording the following :- "It may be pointed out here that the appellants submitted the relevant price lists in Part 1, which shows that the normal prices of the subject excisable goods, i.e., the prices at which such goods are ordinarily sold by the assessee to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade for delivery at the time and place of removal, are ascertainable. Such cases are covered by Section 4(1)(a) main definition Clause of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Hence, there is no ground wh...
industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(29)ELT749TriDel
1. The miscellaneous application for change of name was allowed without opposition.2. The point that comes up for decision in this appeal is whether delivery and collection charges, and loading and unloading charges incurred by the appellants should be allowed deduction from the sale price so as to arrive at the assessable value of the goods which are industrial oxygen gas and acetylene gas sold in cylinders. In respect of the goods, there was a rate contract at the relevant time.3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise ordered the inclusion of these charges in the price, in order to arrive at the assessable price, he did note that according to Section 4(2) the cost of transportation from the place of delivery shall be excluded from "such price" (where, in relation to any excisable goods the price thereof for delivery at the place of removal is not known and the value thereof is determined with reference to the price for delivery at a place other than the place of removal).4. All ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Samaj Biri Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-14-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC36Tri(Delhi)
1. In this reference application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, a purported question of law has been raised by the applicant in the following manner: "whether the refund claim filed before the Assistant Collector for purposes of calculating limitation period as envisaged under erstwhile Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as well as order existed under Trade Notice No. 77/79, dated 25-4-1979 keeping in view the provision of the than existing rule." It would be observed from the above by way of incidental remarks that no question has been framed at all. Possibly the Collector wants to state, as was stated by the learned SDR during the course of hearing, that a question of law arises whether a refund claim is within time or not in terms of erstwhile Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is to be computed from the date of receipt of such claim in the office of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise or from the date of receipt of such claim by a Range Officer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »