Delhi Court June 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. Travancore Electro Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT401TriDel
1. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Cochin through this appeal to the Tribunal does not challenge the classification of Acetylene Gas by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) in the order impugned, but only challenges that portion of the order appealed against, restricting payment of duty by the respondents to a period of six months prior to 21-6-1983, i.e. the date of receipt of the communication issued by the Collector (Appeals) enclosing a copy of the appeal memorandum to the respondents and the relief claimed is that the demand for the entire period as per the original show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kottayam (i.e. with effect from 27/28-2-1982) be enforced against the respondents.2. Registered A.D. notice was issued to the respondents and to their counsel by the Registry of the Tribunal on 21-5-1987 regarding today's date of hearing. None, however, is present for the respondents today.The Bench, in its discretion acting under Rule 2...
Rajasthan Udyog Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC192
1. The appellants M/s Rajasthan Udyog imported gang saw blades and segments for gang saw blades. The dispute is with reference to liability for payment of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act with reference to the said import. Duty had been demanded under Item 51A(iv) Central Excise Tariff. The appellants claimed that the proper classification would be under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff. Their refund claim on the said basis was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Appellate Collector. These appeals are against the said others of rejection.2. We have heard Shri D.N. Mehta, consultant for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar for the Department.3. The invoice and the bill of entry described the goods as gang saw blades and segments for the said gang saw blades. The claim for the Department is that these are to be classified under Item 51A(iv) Central Excise Tariff which, at the relevant time, read "industrial knives and blades for hand or ...
Devi Dayal Aluminium Industres Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT356TriDel
1. This appeal is against the order-in-review No. 8/Review/Collr./83, dated 3-5-1983 and 13-4-1983 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. The appellants, M/s. Devi Dayal Aluminium Industries had a factory where they made goods like aluminium circles, pressure cookers, utensils and others. They submitted classification list and claimed exemption under Notification No. 89/79-C.E. The Collector said that they were not entitled to the exemption because the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit of M/s. Devi Dayal Aluminium Industries was more than rupees ten lacs. This notification allows exemption to goods under certain conditions, one of which was that an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise should be satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment made from time to time on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which...
Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC59
1. Brief facts of the case as stated in the order-in-original are as follows:- 2. On a surprise visit to the factory of the appellant firm at 14.30 hrs. on 6-6-1985 the Central Excise Officers found a tanker loaded with Vinyl Acetate Monomer (VAM) weighing 10080 kgs. valued at Rs.2,59,156.80 near the exit gate of the factory. It has been alleged that VAM had been removed from the place of manufacture/storage without payment of proper Central Excise duty without making any debit entry in PLA and without preparation of any gate pass prior to removal as required under Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commercial Manager of the Unit accepted the facts in his written statement dated 6-6-1985 regarding non-preparation of the gate pass in respect of above VAM loaded in tanker found standing at the exit gate. A show cause notice dated 31-10-85 alleging the contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A and 173G of Central Excise Rules was issued to the appellant No. (1) herein, Shri Gurdial Singh, driver of ...
Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC513Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in these appeals raising common issues and disposed of by this common order are legality or otherwise of order dated 4-4-1983 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi, partly confirming demand of Central Excise duty in respect of Extra Hard Oil, which the Collector (Appeals) called processed VNE Oil being used in the manufacture of Extra Hard, Hydrogenated Oil in a continuous integrated process.2. Four Show Cause Notices demanding duty as detailed below were served on the appellants :- Date of Show Period covered by Amount of duty Cause Notice the Show Cause Notice demanded The first three Show Cause Notices alleged that Extra Hard Oil fell under Item 12 of the Tariff whereas the appellant had cleared this oil under Item 13. The last Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-1980 for the period 1-4-1976 to 31-3-1980 alleged that processed VNE Oil produced in the factory of the appellant and used in the manufacture of Extra Hard Oil fell under Tariff ...
Pradyumnna Steels Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT555TriDel
1. When this appeal was heard, the arguments and the counter arguments of the two counsels were concentrated mainly on the facts of the case whether the date of removal of the goods was known or not and whether clearance would mean a proper clearance or not. At the relevant time, in place of the word "removed" in Rule 9A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules was the word "cleared". The arguments of the two counsels went back and forth on how to read and interpret the meaning of the word "cleared", one side saying that the goods were "cleared" as they went out under factory invoices; the other side saying that there was no clearance of the goods since they were removed without payment of duty and without following the proper procedure and, therefore, this movement was illegal and was not covered by the word "cleared". The appellants maintained that the dates of removal were ascertainable from their records, even though the RG l's had not been written up at the time of the removal. The dep...
Simplex Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT451TriDel
1. Simplex Electronics, Ahmedabad had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order in appeal No. S/49-696/85-T.E., dated 2-1-1987 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The said appeal was received in the Registry on 30-3-1987. The Ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals) had disposed of two orders in original Nos. S/40/108 and 109/84H, dated 24-5-1985 passed by Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay by a single consolidated order. Subsequently the appellant filed another appeal with an application for condonation of delay which was presented in the Registry duly supported with an affidavit sworn before a Notary Public on 20-5-1987.2. Shri D.G. Trivedi, Ld. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has pleaded that the delay in the filing of the subsequent appeal viz. A.No. C1571/87-B2 may be condoned as the first appeal was filed within the stipulated period provided under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. He has reiterated the contentions made in the application ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sarabhai Chemicals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-23-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT417TriDel
1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Baroda against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents were asked to repay the set off availed of by them of duty paid on inputs falling under Tariff Item 68 used in manufacture of finished excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff pertaining to patent or proprietary medicines (P or P medicines). Grounds for demanding back the set off availed by the respondents herein were stated by the departmental authorities in the show cause notice as not following the proper procedure on the following counts:- (i) The respondents have not maintained a prescribed register showing the details of amount claimed and also not filed a abstract thereof with relevant R.T.12S. (ii) Not sent intimation about the receipt of the raw material "INPUTS" in the factory by submitting D.3 forms. (iii) Set off is availed when gate ...
Kamal Cold Storage (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1987
Reported in: (1988)LC389Tri(Delhi)
1. The Appeal is filed against the order of the Collector of Centra' Excise (Appeals), Bombay, dated 27.11.1982. The Appellants brought two K-30 x 110 Ammonia Compressors bearing Serial Nos. 830326 and 830332, falling under Tariff Item 29A(3), from M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd., Pune, on payment of full duty under ragular Gate passes. On 20.1.1979 the Appellants lodged a claim for refund of Rs. " 33.408/-.The Compressors had been actually used for the cold storage within one year of the date of clearance as required under Notification 132/68 dated 13.6.1968. The Appellants secured L-6 Licence and C.T.-2 certificate from the appropriate authorities on 10.11.1978. Chapter X procedure could not be followed prior to the removal of the compressors. The notification has used the words "As far as may be the procedure specified in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is followed". The Assistant Collector rejected the refund on the ground that the procedure contemplated in Chapt...
M.C. Bass Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-22-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD267(Delhi)
1. Assessee by this present appeal challenges order dated 4-3-1985, of the learned. CIT(A), Bareilly, for the assessment year 1981-82. The only issue pressed before us by the learned counsel on behalf of the assessee was that the lower authorities should have accepted the claim of the appellant under Section 80U for Rs, 10,000. Ground Nos. 2 to 4 are arguments in favour of the above grounds and ground No. 5 was not argued. We thus proceed to determine the correctness of the learned CIT(A)'s action in confirming the denial of assessee's claims under Section 80U.2. Assessee by status is an individual and an agent of M/s. J.B. Mody Brothers, Sheth Govindrao Smriti, 83 OCD Annie Besant Road Worli Naka, Bombay-400013. He received salary as well as commission from this firm.The assessee dealt in medicines. He made the sales of medicines and received commission thereon. A copy of the agreement with the employer entered into on 12-2-1968 was filed before the learned ITO. The receipt of salary...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »