Delhi Court January 1988 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.
Commercial Textile Processors Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT696TriDel
1. By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur has held that the goods cleared by the appellants from 16-9-1976 to 1-11-1976 were liable to Central Excise duty, but these were cleared without payment of duty in contravention of Rules 9(2) and 174 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He, accordingly, ordered that appropriate duty on the fabrics processed during this period should be paid by them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. He has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173-Q read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants have challenged the Collector's order by this appeal.2. By their Miscellaneous application dated 2-9-1988, the appellants prayed for permission to amend the Memorandum of Appeal by inserting the following ground of appeal : "14. That without prejudice to the aforesaid even if it is admitted for the sake of arguments that the Applicant-Appellant has been carrying o...
Lohia Machines Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT381TriDel
1. By the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur held that the goods, viz. primered scooter bodies which were stored by the appellants at premises No D-12 Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur were liable for confiscation for storage in an unauthorised premises. As the goods were already released provisionally to the appellants, he directed that the bond executed by them for release of goods should be enforced for a value of Rs 5.000/-. Me also imposed a penalty of Rs 5.000/- on the appellants under Rules 173Q and 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.2. Arguing for the appellants Shri Santhanam has stated that permission to store primered bodies of scooters was granted by the Central Excise Authorities upto 23.12.85. Due to shortage of space the goods could not be removed by the appellants from the said premises. As there was no permission with effect from 24.12.85, the scooter bodies were seized by the Central Excise Officers. He has argued that the Collector in the order-in...
thermo Electric Madras Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC480Tri(Delhi)
(a) demanded from the appellants duty of Rs. 2, 40,620.37 in respect of "heating elements" cleared and captively consumed by them during the period from 16 3.1976 to 23.7.1981; (b) imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant under Central Excise Rule 173Q ; and (c) appropriated to Government the cash security of Rs. 5,000/- towards the value of 525 heating elements which had been seized but provisionally released to the appellants 2. The process of manufacture of heating elements and their composition are described thus: The glass fabric yarn is knitted into fabric in a hand operated knitting machine. Simultaneously, Nichrome wire is wound on strands of asbestos yarn and the same is insulated with glass fibre yarns (filament yarn) in a winding machine which is operated with the aid of power. Then the insulated Nichrome wire so manufactured is stitched with knitted glass fabric mentioned above and a thin M.S. Ring is placed inside the glass fabric net for giving final shape so th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jagatjit Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(24)LC286Tri(Delhi)
1. Notice dated 2-1-1977 was issued to respondents, M/s. Jagatjit Sugar Mills, calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 13,660.00 should not be recovered from them, under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, out of the amount already taken credit by them in terms of Notification No. 203/72. The reason stated was that the said amount related to the excess production of sugar claimed by them in March 1973 but that they were not entitled to the same since there had been no production of sugar by them in the corresponding month of the preceding year. The respondents resisted the demand. On adjudication the Assistant Collector, under his order dated 10-5-1978, confirmed the demand under Rule 10A. The appeal against the same was allowed by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 29-9-1983. This appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh is against the said order.2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have heard Smt.Saxena for the Department and have ...
Lucknow Paper Distributors and Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(35)ELT222TriDel
1. These 23 appeals involve common facts and common question of law and emanating from the same impugned order. We, therefore, heard them together and dispose of them, by this common order.2. Very briefly the question before us is whether the confiscation of certain goods seized by the Central Excise Officers and the imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation and the penalty imposed against M/s.Straw Products Ltd., one of the appellants (hereinafter referred as the First Appellants) is justified or not. Insofar as the question of rate of duty is concerned, the position, as stated by Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld.Consultant, is that the appellants agreed that they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 46/83-C.E. They accept the department's view in this regard. The rate of duty is not therefore an issue before us.3. M/s. Straw Products Ltd. filed a classification list No. 3/83, dated 30-4-1983 effective from 1-5-1983 in respect of straw board and Kraft board following the issue o...
Shri Durga Glass (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC202Tri(Delhi)
1. A common issue is involved in these 10 anneals and one cross objection. They were, therefore, clubbed together, heard together and hence this common order. For the sake of clarity we shall refer to M/s.Shree Durga Glass (P) Ltd. as "the appellants" and the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar as "the department".2. The common issue involved in these 11 matters relates to determination of assessable value of the glassware manufactured by the appellants The appellants manufactured glass tumblers and glass chimneys in numerous sizes and designs. During 1979-83, they sold a part of their production ex-tactory and stock transferred the rest to their depots situated at Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay, Ernakulam, Madras, Vijayawada, Bangalore and Hyderabad. The stock so transferred was sold from these depots. In the price lists, which they filed for approval of the Assistant Collector, the appellants declared their ex-factory sale prices. On verification of their sale invoices, the department...
Collector of Customs Vs. Indexpo International (Pvt.)
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT419TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal, originally initiated by issuing the Review Show Cause Notice by the Govt. of India by virtue of powers vested in them under erstwhile Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is whether the Steam Presses with Portable Boilers and Ironing & Cleaning Tables imported by the respondent should be classified under sub-heading (1) of heading 84.40 of CTA, 1975 as held by the Appellate Collector of Customs or under sub-heading (2) of the same heading as held by the adjudicating authority.2. Factual backdrop: M/s. Indexpo International Pvt. Ltd., respondent herein imported a consignment of 2 Steam Presses with Portable Boilers, 4 Steam Ironing and Clianing Tables and various spare parts for the above. The machines were classified under heading 84.40(2), CTA 1975 and 33C of CET and duty was levied at 60% + 15% basic Customs duty and plus 30% c.v.d. The spare parts were assessed to duty on merits.Subsequently the respondent preferred a claim before...
Coromandel Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC24
1. The present case is remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the following directions See [1986] 10 ECC 106 (SC) para. 17,-- 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and send the case back to it with a direction to decide whether or not in. the process of manufacture of complex fertilisers by the mixture of mono-ammonium phosphate, urea and muriate of potash, a new chemical compound comes into existence or, in other words, whether mono-ammonium phosphate, loses its physical and chemical properties in the complex fertiliser which is ultimately produced. The Appellate Tribunal will decide the question after giving the parties an opportunity of producing materials in support of their respective contentions and after giving them an opportunity of being heard.2. To understand the controversy in hand it would be useful to state the few facts. The appellants are manufacturers of chemical fertilizers. They manufacture, among other things, c...
Ashok Kumar Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jan-29-1988
Reported in: ILR1988Delhi535
Malik, J.(1) The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 21st of May 1985 by which he was convicted of an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment fur life. (2) The brief allegation against the appellant is that on 2nd o[ February 1984 in the kitchen of his premises No. C-495, J. Colony, Khiala, Delhi, lie sprinkled kerosene oil on his wife Pushpa Devi, deceased, and set her ablaze as a result of which she suffered hundred percent burn injuries resulting in her death on the same night. The deceased Pushpa was living in the aforesaid premises Along with the sister of the appellant one Sila Devi, and appellant, her husband (3) The F.I.R. in this case is based on a statement of the deceased Pushpa Devi marked hx. Public Witness 3 A made to S.I Piara Singh, police station Tilak Nagar. SJ. Piara Singh Hsd gone to the Safdarjung Hospital where the deceased, was got admitted by the appellant. He came to the hosp...
Collector of Customs Vs. Carborandum Universal
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jan-28-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC267
1. This appeal is being considered by the Bench consisting of 5 members, under the following circumstances :- 2. The appeal was originally heard by S/Shri G. Sankaran, Sr.Vice-President and V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J) The entire matter arose out of a notice dated 19.12.1981 issued by the Central Government; under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, since the Government was of the view that the order of the Appellate Collector, Customs, Madras, dated 1:7.1981 was not proper, legal and correct. The Central Government observed that the Appellate Collector was in error when he held that no C.V. duty was payable by the respondents on the three imports effected by them by post parcel. The Central Government has stated that for the purpose of C.V. duty, the goods which are silk bolting cloth should be assessed as fabric under Entry Nos. 18 to 22 of the C.E.T.3. The Assistant Collector held that the 3 parcels contained silk bolting cloth, though cut to size, were not ready for use on machine...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »