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.
Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-11-1987
Reported in: 33(1987)DLT332
Malik Sharief-ud-Din, J. (1) The petitioner has been detained in pursuance of a detention order dated 8th April 1987 passed by the Administrator Union Territory of Delhi under section 3(1) read with section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detention order has been passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting, concealing and keeping smuggled gold and also for dealing in smuggled gold. The detention order was preceded by an incident dated 3rd January 1987 when foreign made gold was recovered from the detenu. The detenu in this case is one Harish Verma and the petitioner is his son. (2) The detention order was passed on 8th April 1987 and it was served on the detenu on the same date in jail where he was lodged as an under-trial. The primary contention of Mr. Karam Ali on behalf of the detenu is that there has been an undue and unexplained delay in the consideration of the representation of t...
British India Corporation Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT723TriDel
1. A refund claim preferred by the appellants M/s British India Corporation Ltd. in respect of duty paid on yarn cleared during the period 25-3-1976 to 4-6-1977 was rejected by the Assistant Collector under " his order dated 15-8-1981 on-the ground that the claim was not supported by the necessary documents. On appeal the Collector (Appeals) upheld the said order holding that the appellants had not produced any evidence in support of their contention and that the appeal was therefore being rejected as unsubstantiated.2. We have heard Shri T.C. Seth, Consultant for the appellants and Smt.Dolly Saxena, SDR for the Department.3. The rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector was for the reason that the claim was not supported by duty paving documents (i.e.) P.L.A. and Treasury Challans and that further an account in the proper form as prescribed under Rule 173-L of the Central Excise Rules had not been submitted by the appellants within the prescribed time. Shri Seth submitted tha...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Flock Paper Mfg.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC899Tri(Delhi)
1. In responce to notice of date of hearing the respondents by their communication dated 20-6-1987 received in the Tribunal on 22-6-1987, submitted that being a very small unit they are unable to bear the expenses of travelling to Delhi on the date of hearing. They have made written submissions. We have, therefore, heard Shri A.S. Sunder Rajan, Departmental Representative for the appellant and perused the papers.2. The issue for decision is eligibility of the respondents to benefit of exemption Notification No. 68/76 dated 16-3-1976 in respect of what is called Flock Paper. Shri Sunder Rajan submitted that the issue was squarely covered against the respondent by the decision of the Tribunal Order No. 446/84-C dated 23-7-1984 parties Modern Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Central Excise & Others. After hearing, Shri Sunder Rajan, the appeal was closed for orders.3. It was however, noticed by the Bench that in decision dated, August 25, 1987 reported in 1987 (31) ELT 321 part...
Hindustan BobbIn Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: (1987)(13)LC901Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri N. Mookherjee, Advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakrabarti, JDR for the respondents and have perused the papers.2. The issue for decision in this appeal by the manufacturers is classification for the purpose of Central Excise of Aqueous Solution of Phenol Formaldehyde for the period prior to amendment of the Tariff Item 15A on 1-3-1982.3. Shri Mookherjee, in the above connection draws attention of the Bench to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in India Plastics and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. [1981 (8) ELT 108 (Delhi)]. This decision relates to classification of the same product and for the same period. Shri Chakrabarti, for the respondent also agrees that this decision relates to the same product and the same period before amendment of Tariff Item 15A w.e.f. 14-3-1982. He also agrees that the issue involved in the present appeal is fairly covered by that decision.4. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, w...
Charu Apparel Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT78TriDel
1. Charu Apparel Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. has filed an appeal being aggrieved from an order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. The appellants are 100% export oriented unit and had purchased one Barudan Embroidery Machine from International Textile Machinery Exhibition in Bombay. The appellants had claimed benefit of Project Imports under Heading 84.66. The Ld. Assistant Collector had rejected the appellants' claim for the benefit of Project Imports. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the adjudicating authority the appellants filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) who had confirmed the findings of the lower authority. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellants have come in appeal before the Tribunal.2. Shri M. Venkatraman, Ld. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellants. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal memo.He has pleaded that the main ground of rejection of appellants' claim for Project Import was ...
Fordham Pressings (India) Pvt. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-10-1987
Reported in: (1993)(66)ELT277TriDel
1. Show cause notice dated 13-3-1981 was issued to respondent M/s.Fordham Pressings (India) Pvt. Ltd. as to why the duty paid dies brought back and reconditioned by them should not be considered as a fresh manufacture and as to why duty on the past clearances of reconditioned dies amounting to Rs. 1,65,380.64 should not be recovered from them for the period 1-4-1981 to 30-9-1981. After adjudication the Assistant Collector under his order dated 24-8-1982 confirmed the demand. On appeal the said order was consolidated order in respect of two appeals by the present respondents. The present appeal against the said order so far as it related to the order of Assistant Collector dated 24-8-1982 mentioned above.2. The respondents have intimated by letter dated 24-9-1987 that they shall not be appearing in person. None has appeared on their behalf during the hearing. We have perused facts and heard Shri K.S. Sachar, Jr. D.R. for the department.3. As earlier mentioned, the impugned order in app...
Upper Doab Sugar Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(32)ELT124TriDel
1. Under order dated 23-6-1981 the Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Meerut imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellants M/s. Upper Doab Sugar Mills and further ordered payment of duty amounting to Rs. 15,930/- on the electricity generated by them, and consumed, without payment of Central Excise duty, in their residential colony, hospital etc. The appellants applied to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for review of the said order. Under order dated nil the Collector declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector, holding the same to be proper. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred.2. We have heard Shri Jaswant Singh, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Balbir Singh for the Department.3. Admittedly, the electricity generated by the appellants is supplied by them to their residential colony as also their hospital. It is with refererence to a quantity of 7,96,500 units supplied to the said residential colony and hospit...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. R. Gac Electrodes (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1987)(14)ECC40
1. The appellants manufacture Welding Electrodes. They were selling their entire production to M/s. J.B. Advani (Mysore) (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as J.B.A.Co.). They were giving discount of 27.5% to J.B.A.Co. The point of dispute in this appeal is whether this discount should be disallowed for the purpose of determining the assessable value of the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 2. The period of controversy is from 25-4-1983 to 30-11-1983. The appellants filed a price list in Part I in which they claimed deduction of 27.5% discount allowed to J.B.A.Co. The department approved the same. Later, on 17-11-1983, the department came to know that there was an agreement between the appellants and J.B.A. Co. according to which J.B.A.Co. was to organise sales promotions, marketing, distribution and other services on behalf of the appellants. Thereupon, the department issued a show cause notice on 14-12-1983 proposing to disallow the discount of 27.5%. O...
Suja International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT387TriDel
1. Appellants have imported a consignment of 12 cases declared to contain "Decorative Paper-4495 rolls" valued at Rs. 4,96,431/-. Customs drew samples on two occasions and the Custom House Laboratory declared that the Decorative Paper contained P.V.C. ranging between 66.9 to 77%, the rest being paper. The Custom House, therefore, held that the goods could not be accepted as Decorative Papers but that they were "design embossed plastic sheeting used for wall covering", being a plastic product and falling under 39.01/06 C.T.A. and not 48.01/21, as claimed.Accordingly, they also held that the licence, which was for Decorative Papers, could not be considered as valid for the imports, as consumer goods, were banned for import vide entry No. 77 of Appendix 4 of AM 83 policy. The Assistant Collector, therefore, confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs.2. When the appellant went up in appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), he rejected it holding that the g...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Caprihans India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-09-1987
Reported in: (1989)(33)ELT110TriDel
1. This order will dispose of the application by appellant - Collector of Central Excise, Bombay for condoning delay in presenting appeal to the Tribunal.2. According to the particulars given in the Memo of appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the appellant on 25-3-1986. The appeal should have been filed to the Tribunal by 24-6-1986. The Memo of appeal dated 25-3-1987 was received in the Tribunal on 30-3-1987. The appeal is thus barred by limitation stipulated under Sub-Section (3) of Section 35B of Central. Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by 9 months and 6 days. Excluding the postal delay of 5 days between 25-3-1987 to 30-3-1987, it is barred by limitation by 9 months.3. In the application for condonation of delay, which is supported by an affidavit sworn by Shri V.R. Gangurde, Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, the officer authorised by the Collector to present appeal, it is submitted that the decision in the impugned order followed the ratio of CEGAT decision in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »