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.
Asian Cables Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC69
1. Appellants imported PVC Resin through Bombay Port and the goods were kept in the Bonded Warehouse on 28.6.1980. The goods were removed from the Warehouse vide Ex-bond bills of entry Nos. 308 dated 1.11.1980, 309 dated 1.11.1980, 3350 dated 17.11.80 and 36 dated 30.12.1980 and were assessed at the rate of 40% plus 5% Auxiliary duty plus 47.50% Countervailing duty under Tariff Heading 39.01/06 of C.T.A., 1975 read with Notification No. 205 dated 16.10.1980. Appellants claimed re-assessment of the goods at "Nil" rate of basic customs duty on the ground that the same were exempted from basic customs duty at the time of importation in terms of Notification No. 66/79-Cus dated 15.3.1979.The claim for re assessment and consequential refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay and the order of rejection was confirmed by the Appellate Collector of Customs by the impugned order. The present appeals are against the said orders of the lower authorities.2. We have heard Sh...
Collector of Customs Vs. Joseph Leslie Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC105
1. Collector of Customs, Bombay has filed an appeal being aggrieved from order No. S/49-1618/84CL dated 14-11-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents M/s Joseph Leslie Agencies had imported 2 Pkgs. of Breathing appliances valued at Rs. 1,82,375/- vide Bill of Entry Nos. A 5052-IC (2) dated 24-5-1984 and A 5052-IC (3) dated 24-5-1984. The respondents had claimed its assessment under heading 90.17/18 as components for gas masks and other similar respirators. The adjudicating authority after going through the catalogue and the sample of the goods observed that it was only a part of breathing apparatus which does the function of filtering and therefore by virtue of note 2 to Chapter 90 the goods are not classifiable under 90.17/18 but under 84.10 of C.T.A. The respondents further claimed classification under sub-heading (1) of 84.18 on the grounds that the sub-heading (1) reads filtering and purifying machinery an...
Wealth-tax Officer Vs. A.K. Sen
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-1987
Reported in: (1987)23ITD26(Delhi)
1. These are the appeals filed by the Wealth-tax Officer, Lawyers Circle I, New Delhi at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Delhi VIII, New Delhi urging that the Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, U-Range, New Delhi was not justified : (a) in excluding the value of library from the assessee's taxable wealth rightly assessed by the WTO, and (b) in holding that the Barasat land is agricultural and thereby allowing exemption Under Section 5(1A).2. In a way we can take both these points are concluded in favour of the assessee by the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years but yet since the case on the first point was hotly contested, we wish to record the arguments and express our views thereon.3. The learned Departmental Representative contended that under the provisions of Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act the exemption granted from the levy of wealth-tax is in respect of "any works of art, archaeological, scientific or art collections, books or manuscript...
Snack Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC883Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, Additional Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh has confiscated Biscuits weighing 13,783.740 Kgs. valued Rs. 1,41,367.82 found in excess over and above the recorded balance shown in R.G.I Register, with redemption fine of Rs. 10,000.00, imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 on the appellants and confirmed the demand for Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 165.27 on the goods found short at the time of verification of the stock on 1-2-1984. In the impugned order, the Additional Collector has held, inter-alia, as follow :- "From the submissions made by the penalty that they could not make entries of the finished goods in the R.G.I Register upto date due to negligence and heavy work load, the quantity lying in the finishing room packed in gunny bags and polythene bags had not yet reached the stage warranting its accountal in the R.G.I Register as the biscuits are not marketed in that condition, the omissions were merely in the nature of a clerical lapse and the...
Swatantra Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT559TriDel
1. Swatantra Enterprises have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. The appellants had imported Automatic Plate Processor Unit vide Bill of Entry No. D1476, dated 27th June, 1981 and the Assistant Collector had assessed the same under Heading 90.10. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants had filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). The Collector of Customs (Appeals) had accepted the contentions of the appellants as far as the accessories were concerned but had confirmed the finding of the lower authorities in respect of the exposure unit because the same was not contested by the appellants.Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal.2. A notice of hearing was sent to the appellants. The appellants vide their letter dated 11th May, 1987 have intimated that the matter may be decided on merits in their absence.3. Shri J. Gopinath, the learned ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tisco
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1143Tri(Delhi)
1. The department has filed this appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector, Central Excise, Calcutta dated 8-2-1982. When the appeal was about to be heard on merits, Shri Ravinder Narain, Advocate for the respondents raised an objection that the appeal is time barred.There is also an application for condonation of delay. Hence we heard arguments on the application.2. Shri J.N. Nigam, SDR submitted that the order-in-appeal is dated 8-2-1982 and as the matter was referred to the Central Board of Excise and their views were obtained on 24-5-1983. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 21-6-1983. He, therefore, submitted that the delay may be condoned. Shri Ravinder Narain, urged that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal and that the proceedings were taken to write to the Board only on 10-11-1982. There was a delay of 385 days and there are no grounds to condone the delay. He also cited 1987 (28) ELT 584 (Tribunal)(C.C.E., Kanpur v. Ram Nath Kumar). I...
Tata Engineering and Locomotive Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-04-1987
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC497Tri(Delhi)
1. These two appeals involve common points of law and facts. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of together by this common order.2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and they are subjected to duty under Tariff Item 34 of the CET. They were liable to pay Automobile Cess at the prescribed rates. The said Automobile Cess has been imposed on the Motor Vehicles w.e.f. 1-1-1984 as per Order No. S.O. 932(E), dated 28-12-1983 of the Ministry of Industry (Department of Heavy Industries), New Delhi under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. As per explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the "value" on which the said Cess is leviable has been defined to be wholesale cash price, less certain stated deduction.3. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants on 11th October, 1985 and they were required to show cause as to why the differential "Cess duty" leviable on motor v...
Siemens India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT96TriDel
Their claim is for re-assessment of both the items under Heading 85.01 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The lower authorities have assessed the goods under Heading 85.18/27(1). We have heard both sides and have carefully considered the matter.2. The learned representative of the department accepts that Item (1) - Converter with Fan Assembly is classifiable under Heading 85.01. We agree with him and allow the appellants' claim for this item.3. So far as the second item - Modulpac-C Assembly is concerned, the appellants admit that it is nothing but mounted printed circuit board.We find that printed circuits are specifically mentioned in Heading 85.18/27. In view of Note 2(a) of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, parts specified under a Heading in Chapters 84 and 85 are to be assessed under that Heading only even though they may be essential components of a machine and such machines may have been listed under a different Heading. We hold that Heading 85.18/27(1), as invoked by ...
Southern Railway Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT463TriDel
1. The appellants imported under a Bill of Entry No. D. 839, dated 6.11.78 insulators. These were assessed to Customs Duty under Tariff Heading 84.18/27(1). Subsequently the importers felt that the goods were correct ly classifiable under Heading 84.18/27(7). Their refund application was rejected. As a consequence the appellants filed an appeal against the assessment orders before the Ap pellate Collector of Customs. The Appellate Collector rejected the claim for reclassification of the goods under sub-heading (7) of Heading 85.18/27 on the ground that the im ported goods were designed for use in electrical traction system and are used in distribu tion system and not in transmission system which alone is mentioned in sub-item (7) of the heading.2. The appellants then filed a revision application before the Government of India. The revision application on transfer is now an appeal before us.3. We heard Shri B.V. Chandrasekhar, Sr. Elect. Engineer of Southern Railway assisted by Shri C....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aluminium Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1204Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned counsel for the department Mr. Rajhans began his arguments by quoting a decision of the Supreme Court in 1985 (20) ELT 222 (S.C.); 1985 ECR 2571 (Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.) in which he said the Supreme Court approved the assessment of scraps under their respective heads. He than read the order of the Assistant Collector and pointed to various paragraphs to support his argument that the scrap should be charged to duty under Item 68.2. The learned counsel for M/s. Aluminium Industries however submitted that there was no manufacturer and that the goods remained aluminium.The scrap came from duty paid aluminium and therefore no further duty is leviable on them. There have been various dicisions of courts that scrap was not dutiable. The Supreme Court in its decision quoted by the JDR was only considering the question of countervailing duty; this decision was not relevant to this dispute. He then read the Tariff Item 27, and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »