Delhi Court September 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.
Automotive Ancillary Services Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC211
1. The issue in this matter relates to classification of certain Automotive Switches being manufactured by appellants for use as original equipments in motor vehicles. These switches are described as flasher switch, horn and dipper switch and head-light switch (combination switch).2. As per the orders of the lower authorities, these switches, which had been earlier classified under Central excise Tariff Item No. 68 were correctly classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Item No. 61.Appellant urges, however, that the goods had correctly been classified under Tariff Item No. 68 and that there was no warrant for a .change in practice.3. Heard Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, advocate for the appellant company and Smt. Dolly Saxena, SDR for the department.4. The learned advocate makes the point that the impugned products are not lighting switches at all. Their function, it is claimed, is not to illuminate. The actual functioning of the impugned products has been explained to us.5. It is emphasized...
Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC1254Tri(Delhi)
1. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants manufacture Dextrose I.P. in view of the label and what is called a monogram on the same merits classification as patent and proprietary medicine under the erstwhile Tariff Item 14E of the Central Excise Tariff as claimed by the Revenue or T.I. 68 as claimed by the appellants manufacturer. Allied question is whether demand of duty against the appellants should be for the longer period of five years or shorter period of six months preceding the date of show cause notice.2. There is no dispute that Dextrose I.P. is a pharmacopocial medicine mentioned in Pharmacopoeia of India page 162 which is a specified pharmacopoeia under Notification No. 47/63 dated 1-3-1963.3. The present proceedings against the appellants are the outcome of a visit by Central Excise officers (Preventive) Patiala Division to the appellants factory on 23-l~1982. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of medicines. On examining the labe...
British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT717TriDel
1. This application is for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed on 27-10-1986 under Rule 20 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for default of appearance of the appellants as well as non-compliance with the requirements of the notice of hearing. It is mentioned in the application that on receipt of notice of hearing for 3-9-1986 the applicants sent a telegram seeking for adjournment and followed it up by a letter dated 4-9-1986 but that they received no information.According to them they made further enquiries in May, 1987 and then only learnt of the dismissal of the appeal on 27-10-1986. The application reads that the non-appearance of the appellants on 27-10-1986 was entirely due to ignorance of the date of hearing and hence the appeal may be restored to file.2. We have heard Shri B.B. Gujaral, Advocate for the applicants and Smt. Dolly Saxena for the Department.3. Shri Gujaral submits that since neither the notice for the he...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. New Vinod Silk Mills P. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-29-1987
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC436Tri(Delhi)
1. One of the disputes involved in the present appeals is with reference to a variety of fabric manufactured by the respondents composed of polyamide (nylon) filament yarn in the body and yarn spun from staple fibre of cellulosic origin in the selvedges. The respondent's contention is that the said fabrics fell within the description of S. No. 4(a) of Central Excise Notification No. 138/70 dated 13.6.1970 attracting the traiff value specified therein while the department's contention is that they fell within the description of S.No. 1(a)(i) of the notification attracting the higher tariff value specified therein. 1. Fabrics made wholly of poiyamide (nylon) filament yarn but excluding: 4. Fabrics made of a combination of poiyamide (nylon) filament yarn, and yarn spun from staple fibre of cellulosic origin but excluding laces and brosso (including knitted brosso).The Assistant Collector who originally adjudicated the matters held that the yarn which was contained in the body of the fabr...
United Metal Crafts Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT557TriDel
1. The appellants in their condonation application have stated that the order was passed by the Additional Collector on 28-2-1983 and that the appellants filed the appeal before the Collector who returned the same directing the appellants to file the appeal before the Tribunal. We find that the appeal was filed in time before the Collector and by erroneous practice prevailing at that time that the appeal would lie to the Collector against the orders of the Additional Collector, the appellants filed the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the period prescribed. However, as there been a bona fide mistake of procedure, we are of opinion that there is sufficient ground to condone the delay for filing the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.2. However, we find that the appellants have not deposited the duty amount nor have they filed any application for waiver of pre-deposit.In the circumstances, the appeal is rejected on the ground of failure to deposit the duty amount....
Lakhanpal National Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC261
1. M/s Lakhanpal National Limited (the appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of Leclanche cells known as dry cell batteries. For this purpose they imported from time to time carbon rods. Thirteen such consignments were imported by the appellants which were assessed to customs duty under heading No. 85.18/27(1) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to additional duty of customs equivalent to the excise duty leviable under item No. 67 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the said Schedule is hereinafter referred to as "the CET"). The appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty so assessed but filed claims for refund of additional duty of customs on the ground that the imported carbon rods fell under item No. 68 and not under item No. 67, CET. The Assistant Collector rejected these claims, some of them as unsubstantiated and the others on the ground that battery carbons imported by dry cell battery manufacturers had been tested at ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Ruby Products Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC1275Tri(Delhi)
1. This application has been filed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, for condonation of delay in .filing the appeal No. C/1259/85-C. In the CA-3 Form filed by the Collector of Customs with the Memorandum of Appeal, the date of the communication of the Order appealed against is shown as 25.3.1985 and the appeal has been received in the Registry on 16.7.1985. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Tribunal Coordination Unit, Bombay, who has been authorised by the Collector to file the appeal and the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, has stated in this application that the time limit to file the appeal -expired on 25.6.1985 and that the Collector had passed the orders for filing the appeal on that date but due to paucity of staff and also for the reason that the office machine for photo copying was out of order since 7.6.1985, the appeal could not be filed in time. He has pleaded that if Collector (Appeals)' s order was allowed to stand being not legal and proper...
Kissan Products Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1987
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC161
1. The captioned appeal is against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.2. urief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured vinegar synthetically and the same was classified under T.I. 68 CET. The appellants claimed benefit of Notification No. 55/75 claiming the same to be a food product.3. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that under the said notification 'all kinds of food products' including some specified items were exempted from the payment of duty. He pleaded that word 'all kinds' used in the notification has enlarged the scope of the item food product for the purpose of consideration of the goods to be covered under the said description. He pleaded that the vinegar was an additive to food and is used for preparation of the food and was taken with the prepared food. He stated that vinegar was added for taste also. He pleaded that all additives to the food should be treated as covered by the description of 'all kinds of food ...
General Electro Mechanical Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC207
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Electrical Insulators made of Glass Fibre reinforced plastics. The raw materials are glass fibre in the form of yarn, rovings and glass cloth [falling under Item No. 22F of the First Schedule (hereinafter called the "GET") to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944], Synthetic Epoxy Resin [falling under Item 15A(1) GET], Hardeners and Accelerators [Item 68 GET]. There are variations in the relative percentages of the constituents but it is stated that the glass-fibre content always predominates by weight in the final product.2. The dispute in these proceedings relates to the classification of the final product - electrical insulators - under the GET. It appears the goods were being classified under Item 15A(2) GET till 28-2-1979.With the amendments to Items 15A and 22F GET by the Finance Act, 1979, the department considered that the correct item was 22F and not 68 GET, as claimed by the appellants. After hearing the appellants, the Assistant Col...
Continental Device India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-25-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT299TriDel
1. The captioned appeal is against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellants imported Coil Winding Machine described as Precision Automatic Coil Winding Machine and claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 118/80-Cus. Benefit under this Notification is available in respect of machines and equipments which are designed for use in the electronic industry. The appellants claimed that the machine imported by them was covered under S. No. 7 of the table to the said Notification. The lower authorities held that there was nothing in the catalogue produced by the Appellants to show that the same was designed for use in the electronic industry and held the same as not covered under the exemption notification.3. The learned representative of the appellants Shri Sudhir Goel, Materials Manager for the appellants, pleaded that they had imported the coil winding machine of CS Model and same was intended for use in their fact...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »