Delhi Court February 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.
Srinivas Fine Art Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT539TriDel
1. In this case, the dispute is on classification of the following two items : 2. Mercury Vapur Lamp Unit without bulb, imported as an accessory for the above machine.2. Both sides brought to our notice that the Tribunal, by its majority judgment in Order No. 100/86/B2 dated 11-2-1986 reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal) passed in Appeal No. CD/1339/80/B - Co//ecforo/ Customs, Bombay v. Bharat Vijay Mills, Kalol - has held that step and repeat machine falls under Heading 84.40. The learned Representative of the department stated that he has accepted this classification. The learned Representative of the appellant stated that though in his view Heading 84.34, held by the minority judgment of the bench in the aforesaid order, was more specific for the step and repeat machine, he would not object to the classification being confirmed under Heading 84.40 since there was no difference in the rate of duty between the two headings. In view of the fact that there was no difference in t...
Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT691TriDel
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the imported "Pallet Frisylen Plastic Cutting Boards sizes 900 x 450 x 50 mm" are classifiable under Item 39.01/06 or 84.42(1) of CTA.2. Factual backdrop : The Appellants M/s. Bombay Footwear Pvt. Ltd., imported one Pallet Frisylen Plastic Cutting Boards sizes 900 x 450 x 50 mm and presented B/E for their clearance under Item 84.42(1) of the Customs Tariff as parts of Upper Clicking Machine. On examination of the goods it was found that they were Plastic Cutting Boards as per invoice and these are not having any machining to make it an identifiable part of a machine. It was also noticed that the foreign suppliers themselves had also declared BTN classification of the product as 39.02 in the invoice. Ultimately the Assistant Collector of Customs ordered that the imported goods be assessed to duty under Item 39.01/06 since the imported goods are unmachined Plastic Cutting Boards and cannot be identified as part of any machinery. Ag...
Hind Rectifiers Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT661TriDel
2. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by his order S49-728/82R dated 22.11.1982 said that he had gone through the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellants and that under conditions of the notification, filing of a bond "implies the claim at the time of entry of the goods". There was no such application for bond, and the conditions of the bond were not fulfilled, but the Collector perhaps did not realise that the importers gave the best bond possible viz.cash. I cannot imagine anybody would want a bond when he could have cash.3. To miss the wood for the tree is all too easy in a case like this, but however important form may be, the substance is even more so. It is good to do the correct thing; it is far better to do the right thing.4. The importers say that they have proved the end use by means of a certificate from the central excise and that such certificates were being accepted. It should be accepted this time also unless there are strong reasons for not...
Indian Metal Industries Vs. United Glass Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-25-1988
Reported in: 34(1988)DLT405
G.C. Jain, J. (1) Indian Metal Industries, the plaintiff, is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. S/Sh. Surendra Kumar and Virendra Kumar are its partners. It manufactured Pilfer Proof Cape and Tin Containers, Bakelite Caps, Machines and moulds etc. It also dealt in the sale and purchase of aluminium sheets and aluminium foil etc. It had dealings with the defendant, M/s. United Glass Company, a sole proprietorship firm of Sh. Mool Chand. For the goods purchased from the plaintiff and defendant used to make payments in account from time to time. The account commenced from April 10,1957. (2) On May 17, 1963, Sh. Mool Chand, proprietor of the defendant firm, brought a suit (Suit No. 652/66) for recovery of Rs. 16,286.91 against the plaintiff and its partners. It was alleged that the value of the goods supplied by the present plaintiff was credited and the amounts paid to the plaintiff were debited in its account and in January, 1963 a sum of Rs. 16,286.91 was du...
5 S Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT649TriDel
1. By this application purporting to be under Section 35G(1) of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter (Act) the appellant-applicant prays that the statement of the case be drawn up and the following questions of law be referred to the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter. 1. Whether after the issue of Exemption notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 the appeal could be dismissed for non-compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944? 2. Whether after the issue of Exemption Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, the respondents could insist the compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944? 2. At the hearing, it was pointed out to Shri I.C. Upadhyay, Advocate for the applicants that Section 35G(1) is excluded in its application to an order relating among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of exci...
Smt. Nirmal Mehra Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD50(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal by the assessee arising out of its assessment for the assessment year 1979-80.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.3. The aasessee is an individual and derived income, inter alia, from share of profits from two partnership firms M/s. Mohanlal and Co. and M/s. Melco Wines. The dispute in this appeal relates to interest paid/payable on loans raised for investment in the said firms.4. The first contention raised in this appeal is about a sum of Rs. 2,375 claimed to be due in respect of a loan of Rs. 25,000 raised for investment made in the firm Mohanlal and Co. No claim in this regard was made before the ITO, because at that time the assessee claimed interest on actual payment basis. However, before the learned AAC the assessee raised it in the alternative. The learned AAC did not allow the alternative contention as this claim was not made before the ITO.This, ...
Shree Thirupathi Plastics Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT118TriDel
1. Briefly the facts relevant to the matter are that the appellants imported a consignment of 20 M.T. of Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Moulding powder and filed a Bill of Entry (No. 423/86, dated 19-8-1986) for clearing the same. They also filed invoice No. 438, dated 22-5-1986 issued by the suppliers in U.S.A. This invoice indicated the price of goods at US $ 650 per M.T. CIF Madras. The Customs felt that the value declared was too low and issued a show cause notice threatening to increase the value of the goods to US $ 4,810 per M.T. After due process the Assistant Collector passed an order fixing the value of the imported goods at US $ 1,455 per M.T. Further on imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. one lakh only) on the appellants for mis-declaring the value of the imported goods. The appellants aggrieved by the order of Collector filed this appeal.2. Shri Balani, Ld. Advocate for the appellants submitted that the Collector of Customs decided the matter without adducing any evidenc...
Lal Plastics Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT59TriDel
1. We heard these three appeals together as the facts and issues involved in them were similar and they were argued together by Sh. S.D.Nankani, Ld. Advocate for all the three appellants. The appeals involved three importations of what was described in the Bills of Entry as "Acrylic Plastic Sheet Off cuts" imported by the 3 appellants on various dates. The 3 invoices covering the imports mentioned the value as US $ 375 per M.T. CIF. The customs on examining the consignments found that the importations consisted of offcuts and sheets of Acrylic Plastic.2. The customs department were of the opinion that the goods were undervalued. They therefore issued show cause notices to the parties threatening confiscation of the goods and increase in the value to US $ 900 per M.T. After the due process the Collector of Customs adjudicating the matter confiscated the goods but ordered their release on payment of fines of Rs. 15,000,15,000 again and Rs. 20,000. The Collector further ordered that the ...
Babulal Bros. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-23-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC248Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this batch of appeals, arising out of the same impugned order, is benefit of exemption in respect of additional duty (CVD) in terms of notification 55/75-CE, dated 1-3-1975 as amended by Notification 62/78-CE, dated 1-3-1978 or successor Notification 234/82-CE, dated 1-11-1982 on the goods "Sorbitol" an intermediate drug imported by the appellants.2. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the apellants claim for refund on the grounds that the appellants are not a drug manufacturer nor have they produced any evidence to show that "Sorbitol" is a drug intermediate. In some cases he also held that there was no evidence as to actual use. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay held that "Sorbitol" does not fit in the description intermediate drugs and dismissed the appeals. Hence these appeals to the Tribunal.3. At the hearing of the appeals Shri B.B. Gujral, learned advocate for the appellants relied on the following two decisions of the Bombay High...
Escorts Limited Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1988
Reported in: (1999)(113)ELT424TriDel
1. The only short question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the imported goods Chrome Nickel Steel Tubes (Incoloy 800) conform to the specification, composition and description of "Stainless Steel", so as to be assessable duty under Item No.73.15(2) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as held by the authorities below or they are assessable to duty under Item No.73.17/19 (1) as contended by the appellants.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants imported two cases of Chrome Nickel Steel Tubes (Welded) named Incoloy-800 and presented the B/E for assessment on 21-4-1982. The same was assessed on 23-4-1982 after charging the goods to duty at the rate of 300% + 30% under Tariff Item 73.15(2), CTA, 1975. It appears that subsequent to the clearance the appellants vide their letter dated 8-6-1982 claimed the refund of duty urging that the rate of duty of 300% would apply to "stainless steel" tubes and not to Incoloy-800 tubes. They pointed out t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »