Delhi Court July 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.
Kadodra Paper Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC627Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case briefly stated, are that M/s. Kadodra Paper Industries (P) Ltd., Surat, imported at Bombay Port a consignment of 125.420 MT of Kraft Waste Paper of c.i.f. value Rs. 4,19,592. They presented a bill of entry for clearance of the goods through the customs in which they claimed duty free assessment of the goods under Heading No. 47.01 of the First Schedule (herein-fter "the Schedule") to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with Customs Notification No.219/84, dated 10-8-1984. They also claimed clearance of the goods under Open General Licence (OGL)6, List 8, Part I, Item 261 of the Import Trade Control Policy April-March 1985-88. On examination, 90% of the bales were found by the customs authorities to consist of new paper bags with foreign markings : The bales themselves bore the marking "Libexim IRAQ S.R...." Since empty paper bags are assessable duty under Heading 48.01/21(1) of the Schedule at 100% (basic duty) + 40% (auxiliary duty) + 32.5% +5% thereof as addi...
Dhote Printers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(12)LC1135Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case, the department alleges that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Waxed Paper falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 17(2). It is submitted that they have been undertaking production of this product since 8th September, 1973. The appellants purchase base paper from the market which is then printed and waxed with the aid of power. This waxed paper is mostly used for wrapping and packing of soap, bread etc. The department has demanded duty from the appellants for the period from 31.9.1977 to 30.9.1982 relying on 5 years limitation period from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice.2. Heard Shri S.C. Srivastava, Consultant on behalf of the appellants and Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the department.3. The appellants have argued that they are really manufacturers of printed labels which are product of the printing industry. It is submitted that while it is true that they are undertaking waxing, but this is done in respect of branded labels which are meant for th...
Cyano Pharma Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC227
1. Heard Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Advocate for the appellant and Shri A.K. Rajhans, JDR for the respondent.2. The department's case is that the appellants produced Analgin Tablets, N.F.I. "which were not pharmacopoeial drugs and would therefore fall under Tariff Item l4E of the Central Excise Tariff. It has been held in the order appealed against that the Central Excise Tariff exempts only such of the pharmacopoeial preparations which are strictly in accordance with the approved formula. It is also held that for purpose of reference the pharmacopoeia relevant is the one recognized under Drug Control Act and Rules in the year relevant to production and not any edition which might have subsequently been recognised. The department therefore dismissed the claim of the appellant company that their product was in accordance with the 1979 edition of National Formulary of India (N.F.I.).3. It has been held by the department that the product of the appellant company does not satisfy the prescr...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Laxmi Udyog
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(31)ELT529TriDel
1. The common issue in these two appeals is whether the cost of wooden box used for packing of machine parts manufactured by the respondents should be included in the assessable value of the goods under Notification No. 120/75-CE, dated 30-4-1975 or not.2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the practice of the respondents is to deliver their machine parts to local customers in polythene bags only. For out-station deliveries, a wooden box is used over and above the polythene bag. It is obvious from these facts that the wooden box packing is necessitated by the consideration of safety of the goods during long distance transportation only.Otherwise, the goods, being made of metal and not being delicate or fragile articles, are quite capable of being put in the wholesale market in polythene bag only and they are in fact so sold in the local wholesale market. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Godfrey Philip...
Audio Vision Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC1
1. The common grievance of the appellants in these two appeals is against - (1) denial of the concessional rate of customs duty under exemption notification No. 232/83-Customs dated 18.8.1983 and (2) imposition of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in lieu of confiscation of the imported goods) and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each of the two cases for violation of import trade control restrictions.2. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the appellants obtained an SSI Registration Certificate on 13.11.1984 for manufacture of - During February, 1986, they imported 2 million pieces of ferrite drum core and ferrite cup core. They were to use these goods in the manufacture of RF coils and IF coils which were eventually to be used in the assembly of the aforesaid electronic goods. The lower authorities held the imported goods to be ineligible for the exemption notification as well as for the Open General Licence on the grounds that - (1) the appellants were not Actual Users of...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: (1988)24ITD1a(Delhi)
1. These are cross-appeals, one by the assessee and the other by the Department against the order of the C.I.T. (Appeals) for the assessment year 1980-81. As some of the grounds are overlapping and arguments have been advanced in both the appeals by the two parties, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this common order. We take up the appeal by the assessee first.2. The assessee has raised as many as 11 grounds in its appeal. Besides this at the time of hearing the assessee has placed before us an additional ground of appeal, which reads as follows : That following the order of IT AT for assessment year 1979-80 dated 27-3-1987 (para 46) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law a sum of Rs. 7,34,433 representing excise duty liability deleted by the Collector, Central Excise, in the year of appeal and offered by the appellant for tax should be excluded from the total income of the appellant.3. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ratlam had passed an order on 14...
Taj Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-17-1987
Reported in: 1988CriLJ1634; 1987(3)Crimes358; 33(1987)DLT3A; 1987RLR460
Jagdish Chandra, J.1. In this application for the grant of bail for the petitioner Taj Singh in case FIR No. 196/86 under Ss. 307/302/34 IPC and Ss. 25/54/59 Arms Act of Police Station Narela the short question which calls for determination is as to whether investigation of the case would be said to be complete in terms of S. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code), when the Investigating Officer submitted the challan before the Magistrate on 27-1-87 (the 90th day in terms of the proviso (a)(i) to sub-section (2) of S. 167 of the Code) without appending thereto the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as CFSL) which report has been made admissible in evidence under S. 293 of the Code without the same being proved in the ordinary manner by the deposition of the expert making the same, in the witness-box. 2. Before embarking upon the decision of this legal point it would be desirable to point out a few dates ger...
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC753Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant company, having been allowed by the Collector under the provisions of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 173-PP to clear the goods without payment of duty inasmuch as the quantum of duty was not determinable at the time of clearance of such goods, did not make average weekly deposits of duty on the basis of the previous month's duty payment and corresponding debits thereafter in the months of April and May, August and October, 1983. It has been held in the first impugned order that the appellant-company should have debited the duty to the tune of Rs. 4,69,08,058.05 during the months of April and May, 1983; but it actually debited only Rs. 2,88,63,600.00.Breach of procedure of Rule 173-PP has, therefore, been upheld by the learned Collector. Accordingly, he has imposed a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs on the appellant company under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 vide the first impugned order.2. The appellant on the other hand has urged that it ...
Satelite Communication Project Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT579TriDel
1. The appellants pray for benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty under heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is a statutory condition of this heading that the contract under which the goods were imported should have been registered with the customs prior to clearance of the goods. The appellants admit that the said contract had not been registered with the customs. Since the statutory condition of the heading is not satisfied, the benefit of the heading cannot be extended to the appellants. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal....
Hyderabad Iron and Steel Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-16-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT588TriDel
1. Under letter dated 14-5-1982 the Superintendent of Central Excise had called upon the appellants M/s. Hyderabad Iron & Steel Works Ltd. to pay the differential duty for the raw material received by the appellants from M/s. Hyderabad Asbestos during the months of October, 1980, November, 1980 and January, 1981. This was in connection with their earlier payment of duty on job charges under notification No.119/75. Their appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)under his order dated 22-10-1982. He held the demand was justified in law, and that the complaint about failure of procedural justice on the ground of failure to issue a show cause notice could not be considered as the same had not been raised before the lower authorities and that the contention regarding time bar was also not valid. It is against the said order that the present appeal has been preferred.2. The appellants have indicated by their letter dated 3-6-1987 that they would n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »