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.
K. Mohan and Company (Exports) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT468TriDel
1. The question before the Tribunal in this appeal is the classification of "Hand Operated Knitting Machines with Punch Cards -Model 840". The Custom House assessed the goods under Heading 84.37(2) CTA. The appellants claim assessment of the same under Heading 84.37(1) CTA. The Customs considered that the imported goods were not domestic machines whereas the appellants claim that the goods are "other than domestic machines".2. The question, therefore, could be simplified into whether the imported goods are domestic knitting machines or not. Shri M.G. Abrol, the learned Consultant for the appellants argued that the imported goods cannot be considered as domestic machines.3. Reference was made, by both sides, during the course of arguments, to an earlier judgment of the Tribunal in 1985 (22) ELT 115 (C.C., Bombay v. Simac Group (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay in support of their respective claims. We have perused this judgment but do not propose to refer to it extensively as another knitting ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. E.i.D. Parry Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT655TriDel
1. After hearing both sides briefly and on examination of the record, we find that the subject appeal of the department has been signed and submitted by a Superintendent of Central Excise whereas the authorisation of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras to file the appeal against the impugned order-in-appear was in favour of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Madras. Consequently, the appeal, having not been signed and filed by a duly authorised officer of the Collector, is not a competent appeal. We dismiss it as such....
Vijay Silicate and Chemical Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC468Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri H.P. Arora, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Shishir Kumar, SDR for the respondent and have perused the available papers and relevant provisions. Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi by his order dated 28-9-1983 rejected and dismissed the appeal of the appellants filed before him by observing that the appellants have filed the petition with reference to a series of correspondence exchanged with the local authorities. No appeal lies against such ordinary communication in the normal course of activities which are purely informatory in character or clarificatory nature. He further observed that apart from the foregoing the petition has been submitted after normal period of limitation as admitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners vide letter dated 19-4-1983. He also did not accept the request for condonation of delay made by the appellants observing that in any case the appeal petition had been filed before the recent amendment of law vesting...
Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1987
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT325TriDel
1. A counter part of this appeal was decided by us in our order No.485/86-B1, dated 5-8-1986. This present appeal is with respect to the refund claim that arose from the same dispute of classification that was the subject of our previous order.2. The learned counsel for M/s Alcobex, Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, began by saying that he would only like to point out an error in the Tribunal's order. At paragraph 6, the order reads that hollow rods and hollow bars were unknown in metallurgy though hollow sections were well known. To contradict this, he referred to Chapter 74 of the Harmonised Systems Customs Tariff in which hollow bars of copper are specifically entered in entry 74.07/08. He also referred to the Indian Standard Glossary of Terms for copper and copper alloys PART I -- Cast Form and Wrought Form Main Types (second revision) - IS; 3288 (Part I) -1981. This standard defines hollow rod at 3.11 as a "round hollow product, the cross-section of which completely encloses a void or voids a...
Webel Toolsind Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT567TriDel
1. The following items are the products involved in this case :-__________________________________________________________________SI Model No. Nomenclature3. HDM120 Bench Drilling Machine (Combination of Sl. No. 1 & 7).4. HDM 160 " " " Bench Drilling Machine (Combination of Sl. No. 2&7).7. Tbst150 Bench Drill Stand for HB 1280/1650.8; TR 65 " " " for Grinder Model HSW 596.2. The appellants filed a classification list claiming the assessment under Tariff Item 68. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 29-9-1981 stated that the goods declared under Sl. Nos. 1, 2 & 5 are self contained electric motor capable of and primarily designed for working in the hand and conform to the Tariff description of Tariff Item 51A(ii). In regard to Items at Sl. Nos. 3, 4 & 6, he held that they are built in self-contained electric motors which are portable and could be fitted and removed by hand and they were designed to be controlled and directed by the hand during operation fitting cl...
National Rayon Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT727TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Appellate Collector dismissed the appellants' claim for assessment of the imported parts of heat exchanger made of "Karbate 22" material under Heading No. 84.17 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and upheld the classification confirmed by the Assistant Collector under Heading No.68.01/16 of the Schedule. The reason given was that though the subject goods were parts of heat exchanger, they were excluded from Chapter 84 being articles of carbon falling within Chapter 68.2. We have heard Shri K.K. Kapoor, Consultant for the appellants and Shri K.C. Sachar, D.R. for the respondent.3. At the outset, Shri Kapoor drew our attention to two decisions of this Tribunal having a bearing on the present dispute. The first is in Sawrashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1983 E.L.T. 1182 wherein, by a majority, the Tribunal held that carbon rings, admittedly parts of machinery, are classifiable under Heading No. 84.65 as "parts of machinery...
Suresh Chand Agnihotri and anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1002Tri(Delhi)
1. In these Reference Applications, the applicants have prayed that following two questions may be referred to the Hon'ble High Court under Section 82-B(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 :- (i) Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 provides for giving a notice to the owner of the gold or other person concerned, before ordering confiscation of the gold. It is to be decided whether a claimant of gold or his successors should be treated as the owner of gold or they are covered under the term "the other person concerned". (ii) Whether successors can be debarred from inheriting the property of their father simply because the liability of Section -8(1) of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 attached to their father cannot be transferred to them." 2. When these applications came for hearing before us, Shri Suresh Chand Agnihotri appeared on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother Shri Mahesh Chand Agnihotri. He submitted a letter of authority from Shri Mahesh Chand Agnihotri to represent his ...
Mohanlal Ghanshamdas Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC535Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order Additional Collector (Customs) New Delhi ordered for the confiscation of torque wrenches under Section l11(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 imported by the appellants without a valid licence but gave the appellants importer an option to redeem the same on payment of a Redemption Fine of certain sum and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Being dis-satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. However, the appellants instead of depositing the amount of penalty of Rs. 25,000/-imposed upon them, as required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, moved an application for waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty in terms of the proviso to the said Section. In the said application the appellants, inter alia, prayed that the operation of the impugned order be stayed by waiving the condition of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty imposed. The said application was taken up for hearing on 11-5-1987. Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, learn...
Synthetic Detergents Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-12-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC866Tri(Delhi)
1. Appellants are not present for hearing today. In their letter No.JS/14/CUS, dated 2-5-1987 they have, however, requested that the case may be decided on merits on the basis of their written submissions in the appeal memorandum. We have, therefore, asked the learned 3.D.R. to argue the matter for the respondent.2. We have heard the learned 3.D.R. and have also considered carefully the records of the case including the written submissions of the appellants in the Appeal Memorandum.3. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has decided two issues, viz., (i) whether demand raised under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and (ii) whether the amount of excise duty not paid to the Government, but recovered by the appellants from the customers should be included in the assessable value of the excisable goods.4. Collector (Appeals) has held that demand raised under Rule 10 could b...
Pasteur Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-11-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC817Tri(Delhi)
1. The present matter relates to dispute regarding correct classification of 5 products manufactured by the appellants which are marketed as : 2. On 13th May, 1985 a show cause notice was issued to the appellant company by the department stating that these items, which were hitherto classified under Tariff Item 14-E as Patent or Proprietary medicines, would be classifiable with effect from 17th March, 1985 under revised Tariff Item No. 14-F(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. The show cause notice referred to Explanation II in the revised Tariff Item No. 14-F, according to which the said Tariff Item is inclusive of cosmetic and toilet preparations, whether or not they contain subsidiary pharmaceutical or antiseptic constituents or are held out as having subsidiary curative or prophylactic value.3. In his order-in-original, the Assistant Collector classified the products Calaminol, Calamyl, Aquaminol and Calacream as cosmetics and toilet -preparations made for the care of the skin under T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »