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.
Collector of Central Excise and Vs. Kashmir Vanaspati and anr.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC219
1. These three appeals raising common question of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of together. Appeals Nos. 912 & 913/86 are revenue appeals where M/s Kashmir Vanaspati are the respondents and appeal No. 420/86 is an appeal of M/s Kashmir Vanaspati where C.C.E. Chandigarh is the respondent. The questions involved being similar, appeals are being decided together.2. The main question to be decided in all these appeals is whether the nickel catalyst, bleaching activated earth and activated carbon (admittedly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 68 GET) used by M/s Kashmir Vanaspati (hereinafter referred to as the appellants) in the course of manufacture of vegetable product are entitled to the benefit of notification No. 201/79-CE (hereinafter referred to as the said Notification) or not. Another question that would arise is whether the demand raised by the Revenue against the appellants was in time.3. The admitted facts are that nickel catalyst is used as a ca...
Punjab Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT314TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether coal briquettes produced by the appellants are liable to Central Excise duty and if so under what Tariff item. The appellants converted coal into powder form and added molasses in it as a binding material. These two were mixed in a mixer and passed through a press to form 'Coal Briquettes' which are then dried in drying chambers. According to the appellants neither any chemical nor any other material is added at any stage. The use of the briquettes is stated to be the same as that of coal. The resultant product (briquette), is for use in oven etc. as fuel for domestic and other purposes.2. The authorities below held that the processing employed by the party amounted to manufacture and that the goods are liable to C.E. duty under Tariff item No. 68 CET. The Additional Collector raised a demand for duty consequent on this finding and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. Hence the present appeal.3. It is submitted by Sh...
S.S. Grewal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC95Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved by the absolute confiscation of the revolver and rifle imported by the appellant without the cover of I.T.C.licence/C.C.P., the appellant has filed the present appeal.2. Put briefly, the essential facts of the case are that the appellant imported a revolver .32 bore and one rifle which were ordered to be absolutely confiscated by the Adjudicating Authority. Against this order the appellant preferred his appeal but without success.3. On the date of hearing none appeared for the appellant. Instead the appellant vide his letter dated 29-4-1987 requested to decide the case on the basis of the judgment passed by my learned brother Shri K.P.Anand, Member (Technical) in the case of Shri P.C. Joshi v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi 4. I have gone through the case record and perused the judgment rendered in the case of Shri P.C. Jain v. Collector of Customs, surpa.The facts of the case are akin to the instant case. In that case it was submitted that in a number of other cas...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eastern Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT723TriDel
1. The respondents M/s. Eastern Industries manufacture, amongst other articles, M.S. Rivets and Bright Drawn Bars. Notice dated 17-10-1981 was issued to them as to why duty should not be realized from them on the said goods during the period 1-8-1980 to 6-4-1981 and why they should not be required to take out a Central Excise Licence and penalty should not be imposed. Under his order dated 22-3-1982 the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta confirmed the duty demand but did not insist on the respondents taking out a licence in view of Notification No. 103/81. He did not impose any penalty also. On appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under the order dated 15-12-1982 accepted the case of the respondents with reference to the bright drawn bars. So far as the rivets were concerned he held that even if they were made out of M.S. rounds by forging process they could not longer be classifiable as Iron and Steel Products under T.I. 26-AA (ia) and would be correctly classif...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Union Carbide (i) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT152TriDel
1. The Revenue has come forward with this appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector, Calcutta dated 7.7.82.2. The respondents are manufacturing Zinc Calots falling under T.I.26(b) of the Schedule and have paid duty on conversion charges under T.I. 68, after availing the exemption of duty under Notification 119/75-CE dt. 30.4.75. In respect of one of the customers namely M/s J.K. Batteries, the respondents used cadmium in the manufacture of zinc calots. The calots contained 99.6% of zinc, 0.35% of lead and 0.05% of cadmium. The zinc and lead were supplied by M/s J.K. Batteries. The period in issue is from 26.12.75 to 25.12.76. The respondents paid duty under Notification 120/75-CE on the invoice value which took into a/c the cost of cadmium besides the conversion charges. A show cause notice was issued on 27.4.79 alleging that the product cleared was different from the goods given for job work and that the respondent have suppressed the materials. In their reply, the responde...
Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT356TriDel
1. The learned counsel, Mr. Sridhar, argued Hvaliantly and with great spirit, but this dispute is not new and is already settled. He argued that the RCC poles were manufactured by different units - each licensed independently of the others. The present unit is licensed in the name of the Executive Engineer of that unit. [In the appeal they speak of 2 units - one at Devangere and another at Chitradurga - of which only one is in the jurisdiction of this Assistant Collector]. Each unit must be taken separately. It is not correct to take the total of all the units in the State. But this does not take into account the fact that licensing focuses on the actual producing division or sub-division. If the licence was in favour of the engineer, that was because he was the applicant: the State Government could have been licensed if it had applied. The argument loses sight of another fact - the poles are not produced for the engineer in charge but are produced for the State Government to be used ...
John Richard Brady and ors. Vs. Chemical Process Equipments P. Ltd. an ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-1987
Reported in: AIR1987Delhi372
Arun B. Saharya, J.1. By this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. Plaintiffs have prayed for an ad interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in Machines that arc substantial imitation and reproduction of the design, manuals and Drawings of the Plaintiffs' Fodder Production Unit and thereby amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' Copyright therein, or from dealing in those Machines made on the basis of information and know how disclosed to them by the Plaintiffs in conditions of strict confidence, and from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing off the Defendants' products as those of the plaintiffs.2. In the Suit, the Plaintiffs have sought permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing Copyright of the plaintiffs, from passing off Defendants' products as those of the plaintiffs', for rendition of accounts of profits, an...
Hapjan Purbat Tea Estate Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT719TriDel
1. M/s Hapjan Purbat Tea Estate had filed the present appeal and E-Appeal No. 925/83-D against order No. 12 & 13/ASM/83 dt. 13-1-1983 of the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Calcutta. The Registry, overlooking this appeal, appears to have called upon the appellants, with reference to their appeal No. 925/83, that they are to file a supplementary appeal since the order-in-appeal had disposed of two appeals. The appellants also, overlooking that they had already filed two appeals, filed a supplementary appeal which had been numbered as E-A.No.1813/87-D. On 13-6-1987, E-A.No. 925/83 and 1813/87-D had been disposed of after hearing the appellants.2. In the circumstances nothing survives for consideration in this appeal since the dispute covered by this appeal has already been disposed of under the earlier order. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as unnecessary and the Court fee paid on this appeal is directed to be refunded to the appellants....
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)ECC256
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 10-8-1982 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hyderabad issued a show cause notice to the appellants asking them to show cause why Central Excise duty of Rs. 1,54,006.18 should not be paid by them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rules 9(2) and 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The charge against the appellants was that they cleared clinical samples of P or P-Medicines falling under Item 14-E of the Central Excise Tariff without observing the conditions prescribed in Notification No.48/77-C.E., dated 1-4-1977. According to condition No. 3 of the said Notification, the clinical samples should be packed in a form distinctly different from regular trade packing and each smallest packing should be clearly and conspicuously marked "Physician's sample, not to be sold". It was alleged that the appellan...
Harish Kumar and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-03-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC217
1. All the aforesaid 5 appeals though involving different appellants and different importations, are being disposed of by a common order because the facts are similar and the appeal memoranda of the different appellants are identically worded.2. Brief facts of the cases are that the appellants had imported revolvers of make R.S. (REINHOLD SATTLER KG) of 32 bore by post parcels. All the post parcels have arrived in India before 13-11-1986 when the importation of fire arms as gifts was banned. The said importation was hitherto allowed in terms of Public Notice 27/80, dated 15-7-1980 as reproduced in para 158 of the Import & Export Policy (April 1985 -March 1988) prior to 13-11-1980. It has been stated in the grounds of appeal in all cases that the import of fire arms as gifts was allowed liberally prior to 13-11-1980 subject to the following conditions :- (b) C.C.P. will be issued only if no fire arm is acquired during the last 10 years. (d) C.C.P. will not be Jssued if the arm has ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »