Delhi Court November 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.
Amit Polymers and Composites Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC270
1. These two appeals are filed by the as- sessee and the Revenue against the same Order-in-appeal. Hence, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The dispute in this case is the classification of laminated paper or paper board for the purpose of central excise duty. The appellants claimed classification under Head- ing 4818.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as other articles of paper pulp, paper or paper board.The Assistant Collector classified it under Heading 392031 as article of plastic. On appeal, the Collector (Appeals) ordered classification of the goods under Heading 481139 as laminated paper or paper board.3. The impugned order describes the process of manufacture of the appellants' goods, which is as follows: "Paper is passed through resin bath and is impregnated with resin (phenol formaldehyde resin) to obtain resin impregnated paper. These are used as core paper. The top papers are the design paper. After design is printed on the p...
Tracto Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC283Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Tracto Auto Industries (P) Ltd. have filed an application for rectification of the miscellaneous order No. R 36/84-NRB dated 11th December, 1984. A notice of hearing dated 5th October, 1988 issued on 6th October, 1988 was sent by registered A.D. post. Nobody has appeared on behalf. of the applicant. The applicant has not filed any application for adjournment and has also not made any arrangement for proper representation before the Tribunal and as such we proceed to decide the matter ex parte.2. Mrs. Dolly Saxena, the learned senior departmental representative, has appeared on behalf of the respondent. The appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order No. A-80/84-NRB dated 10th May, 1984 as withdrawn. Thereafter, the applicant had filed an application for the rectification of the order which was rejected by the Tribunal vide order No. R-36/84-NRB dated 11th December, 1984. Against order No.R-36/84-NRB dated 11th December, 1984, the applicant has again moved an application ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. E.i.D. Parry (India) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC49Tri(Delhi)
1. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras had filed an appeal being aggrieved from order-in-appeal No. 56/84(M)dated 28th April, 1984 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras. The said appeal was presented in the Registry on the 6th day of August, 1984 and was signed and verified by Sh K. Gopal Chari, Superintendent of Central Excise (Judicial) and was accompanied by an attested copy of authorisation in favour of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise (Judicial). The matter had come up for hearing before the Tribunal on merits at various occasions starting from 25th March, 1985, 13th June,1985,16th September, 1985, 10th December, 1985, 2nd May, 1986, 26th June, 1986, 27th June, 1986, 18th November, 1986, 12th December, 1986 and 8th April, 1987. On all these dates of hearing, the matter could not finally be disposed of for one or the other reason. The last matter had come up on 16th June,1987 when it was observed that the appeal was signed by the Superintendent of C...
N.K. Woollen and Silk Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT686TriDel
1. These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.3/Addl/Collr/MP/83, dated 5-3-1983 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur.2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent.3. At the outset, we heard both representatives on the miscellaneous application filed for the appellants. Thereafter the application for insertion of an additional ground in the appeal memo was allowed by the Bench.4. Thereafter, the appeals were taken up for hearing and after hearing both sides and perusing the records we pronounced our order in the Court to the effect that we are allowing the appeals on the short ground that the Additional Collector had not complied with the Board's directions in the Order-in-Appeal passed by it. This order sets out the reasons for our decision.5. In the view we have taken of the matter, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. It will...to record that the appellants had...
Dalal Consultant and Engineers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)ECC36
1. Briefly, the facts are that appellants claimed refund of duty on reimport of three consignments of goods of Indian origin, which had been exported for execution of a project in Iraq. The goods, however, arrived after the expiry of 3 years' time limit as provided under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the special circumstances, the Government of India granted an ad hoc exemption on 23-2-1985 in respect of the goods, the date of import of which was 17-7-1984. This exemption was granted in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Finance Act, 1984. The exemption was granted subject to the condition that the Collector of Customs, Bombay was satisfied that the conditions of duty free import of Indian origin materials/equipment/machinery in question under Section 20 (a) (d) of the Customs Act were fulfilled in all respect except for the period of re-import not being within 3 years ...
Kunju Coach Builders Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC297Tri(Delhi)
1. In response to notice of hearing for the subject stay application filed by the applicants/appellants herein, they have stated that it may be decided on the basis of submissions made in the subject application.Accordingly, the learned JDR, Shri D.M. Borade, was heard for the respondent/non-applicant.2. The subject application states that facts of the case are exactly similar to the one decided by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Darshan Singh Paviter Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1988 (34) ELT 631 (P & H). Question involved in this case as in the case before the said High Court is whether the body built on duty paid chasis is covered by CET Heading 87.07 as contended by the applicants/appellants or under CET Heading 87.02 or 87.04 as contended by the non-applicant/respondent. The said High Court has held that the process of body building of motor vehicle is covered by CET Heading 87.07 and therefore, would be covered by the exemption notification 1...
Steel India Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(21)LC93Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Steel India, 128-A, Chinchwad, Telco Road, Pune had filed an application for the restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide order No. 541/87-B dated 20th August, 1987. A notice of hearing dated 4th April, 1988 issued on 11th April, 1988 was sent by registered AD post to the applicants. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the applicants. The applicants have not filed any application for adjournment and have also not made any arrangements for proper representation before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the same ex-parte. In the application for restoration, the applicants have narrated the detailed facts of the case. The applicants in para 27 have stated that they had posted the appeal on 6th March, 1983, it should have been reached on 8th March, 1983 and as such, the appeal was in time.2. Shri J.N. Nigam, the learned Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondents, stated that the appeal is not covered by the proviso to Rule 20 ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Aerolex Hose Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1989)(20)LC430Tri(Delhi)
1. Dealing with the miscellaneous application first the respondents company has prayed for substituting the respondents as stated in the impugned order namely from M/s. Aerolex Hose Industries to Aerolex Hose Pvt. Ltd. There being no opposition from the learned SDR misc.application is allowed with consequent change in case title.2. Question involved in this appeal is the classification of the respondent company's product described as 'Hose assembly1. The product is composed of rubber or PVC Hose which is fitted with metal or aluminium fittings and sold as such. The Assistant Collector classified the product under T.I. 4009.92 of CETA which reads as: 40.09- Tubes, pipes and hoses of vulcanised rubber other than hardened rubber, with or without their fittings (for example, joints, elbows, flanges) 4009.92- Designed to perform the function of conveying air, gas or liquid.The respondents company, on the other hand, claimed its assessment under CETA 8431.00 or 8466.00 as parts of machinery...
Kay Pee Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC173
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of Collector of Customs, New Delhi. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported goods which were declared by them as Self Adhesive Tapes of Taiwan origin. These, on examination, were found to be answering to the description of PVC Insulat- ing Tapes bearing No. 33946, a product of Four Pillars Enterprises Company made in Taiwan ROC. The goods were sought to be cleared against licences which permitted the import of Self Adhesive Tape as per para 6 of Appendix 17 of the Import Trade Policy, 1985-88. The said para 6, for convenience of reference, is reproduced below : "Wherever "packing materials" is allowed for import in col. 4 and the items permitted as packing material include paper or card board or plastic materials such as LDPE the licences will also be valid for import of "Self Adhesive Tape" as packing material upto 1% of the value earmarked for import of packing materials or Rs. 500/- whichever is higher, within the ov...
Ravinder Kumar Bhandari Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1988
Reported in: 1989(2)Crimes558; 37(1989)DLT12
H.C. Goel, J.(1) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the detention of the petitioner, Ravinder Kumar Bhandari, as per the order of detention issued on January 19, 1988 by order and in the name of the Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, respondent No. 2, under the provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 2(f) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting, selling and keeping smuggled goods and also dealing in smuggled goods viz. gold. The first ground of attack to the detention of the petitioner is that the order of detention as served on the petitioner is dated January 19, 1988, whereas the grounds of detention served on the petitioner are dated January 21, 1988 and that showed that the grounds of detention were not framed and formulated simultaneously and contemporaneously with the making of the order of detenti...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »