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.
Shree Krishna Pharmaceuticals Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-1988
Reported in: (1988)(36)ELT190TriDel
1. During the hearing of the appeal before us Shri D.N. Kohli, learned Consultant argued for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, learned J.D.R. argued for the respondent-Collector. After conclusion of the hearing, the case was closed for order. Four days after the hearing was over, Shri Kohli, in his letter dated 21-9-1987, made a request to refer the matter to Special Bench A of this Tribunal. The contents of his letter are reproduced below : "This is to submit that during the hearing a question arose that M/s.' Shri Krishna Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were manufacturing chemicals on labour charges. It was thought that the transanction could not be termed as a sale within the meaning of Section 4(1)(i) as read with Section 4(4)(e) which permits different values for Government customers. It is submitted that the Section 4 has inbuilt provisions for dealing with situations e.g. a "best judgment' valuation under valuation Rule 7. In view of this the only way to determine the value in an ...
Kirit Packaging Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC50
1. The question for decision in this appeal is classification of LDPE colours/pigments (Master Batches) after amendment of Item 15A on 28-2-1982.2. The appellant had earlier been classifying PVC Master batches under Tariff Item 14I(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. After amendment of Tariff Item 15A on 28-2-1982, the appellant filed revised declaration on 1-12-1984 claiming full exemption in terms of Notification No.83/83-C.E., dated 1-3-1983 as also from licensing control under Notification No. 111/78-C.E., dated 9-5-1978 as amended on the ground that master batches i.e. LDPE colours or pigments fall under Tariff Item 15A(1), no manufacture was involved and no liability to duty attracted. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated 10-7-1985 after following the usual procedure, held the goods in question as classifiable under Tariff Item 14I(1)(ii) of Central Excise Tariff and rejected their declaration dated 1-12-1984 claiming re-classification under Tariff Item 15A(...
Collector of Customs Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC290Tri(Delhi)
1. The dispute in all these 15 cases is whether the forgings imported by M/s. Motor Industries are to be assessed as parts under the respective heads as claimed by the department or as steel forgings under the forgings head. The Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras in various orders ruled that the steel forgings were mere pieces of forged iron/steel and had no similarity with the finished product except their outward shapes. He also recorded that the imported adjusting pins had to undergo, the process of tumbling, turning, grinding, heat treatment, chromium plating, lapping, etc., after which alone the finished product could be fitted in the governor. Minor faults in such sensitive parts would lead to their rejection and so he concluded that the finished items had no resemblance with the rough blanks imported. He, therefore, decreed that the rough forgings did not have the essential characteristics of the finished items and would not attract the provision of Rule 2(a) of the Rules f...
Old Village Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC606Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the confiscation of the seized goods namely synthetic textiles measuring 45881.65 yards with an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,37,650/- in lieu of confiscation and also imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 12,350/- the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : Acting on the tip of officers of the Customs Preventive, Delhi searched the business premises of the appellant on 18/19.12.1984 and as a result of search synthetic fabrics of foreign origin as well as of Indian origin were found lying in loose condition in their godown. The imported fabrics were segregated from the Indian goods. Shri K.C.S. Nair, the Authorised Signatory of the firm requested for time to produce the documents. Accordingly the synthetic fabrics of foreign origin were detained under a proper panchnama prepared on the spot* Subsequently on 22.12.1984 the appellant submitted photo-copies of some Bill of Entries, Import Licence and C...
Jodhpur Tea and Industries (P) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC203
1. The appellants M/s. Jodhpur Tea & Industries (P) Ltd. were denied the concession of 10% reduction in rate of duty under Notification No.90/70-C.E., dated 1-5-1970 on the ground that they were not a bought leaf factory as defined in the explanation to the notification. This was under the order of the Assistant Collector dated 3-8-1974. This order was upheld by the Central Board Excise and Customs under its order dated 5-1-1982. The revision petition to the Central Government against the said order is the present deemed appeal before us.2. We have heard Shri Dalip Kumar Dhar, advocate for the appellants and Shri V.M. Doiphode for the department. "For the purpose of this notification the expression 'bought leaf factory' means a tea factory which has purchased not less than two-thirds of its green leaf from outside sellers during the financial year 1963-64 and in the financial year immediately preceding that in which the duty is levied." The lower authorities rejected the claim of ...
L.M.L. Limited Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(38)ELT336TriDel
2. Upper India Polymers is a division of the appellants LML Limited.They are licenced to manufacture man-made Filament Yarn. They filed a Classification List No. 1/Caprolactum/86 effectivie from 27.6.1986.Thereunder they have shown Caprolactum, produced out of nylon Filament waste by a process of recycling such waste, under two headings. The second heading read "waste of synthetic filaments falling under sub-heading No. 5401.10". They had claimed the same to be free of duty under Notification 36/85-CE as amended by Notification 172/76-CE. Show cause notice dated 5.11.1986 was issued to them with reference to the said classification list. After receipt of reply the Assistant Collector, Kanpur adjudicated the matter. Under order dated 19.1.1987 he held that exemption claimed by the appellants was not available. He therefore approved of the classification list with the modification that the exemption claimed in respect of above product was not available. The appeal against the said order...
Hi-life Tapes (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-17-1988
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT430TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original C. No.V/5909/15/201/86 CX. Adj. dated 29-9-1987.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that M/s. Hi-Life Tapes (P) Ltd. (the appellants) are engaged in the manufacture of "sitralised" spindle tapes. Spindle tapes were being obtained from the market and subjected by the appellants in their premises to the process of "sitralisation", a process patented by the South India Textile Research Association ("SITRA"), Coimbatore. The Central Excise staff visited the unit on 19-5- 1986 and found the appellants engaged in this actively without obtaining a Central Excise manufacturing licence for the goods. They seized the stocks of the fully manufactured goods and drew samples for test. The Chemical Examiner reported on the samples thus:- "the sample is in the form of a flat narrow woven tape composed of cotton impregnated with a polymer (Polyamide type). Base cotton fabric - 91% (approx) Polymer (Polyamide) - 8% ( " ) Note : It is seen ...
Davangere Cotton Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC45
1. In these four appeals, a common question is involved regarding interpretation of Notification No. 136/77, dated 18-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 227/77, dated 15-7-1977.2. Accordingly, a common order is being passed for all the four appeals which have come on transfer under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, relevant portion of Notification 136/77, as amended by 227/77, dated 15-7-1977 is reproduced below :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Sub-section (3) of ection 3 of the Additional Duties (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957), the Central Government hereby exempts fents and rags of cotton fabrics of the description specified in column (2) of the Table hereto annexed (hereafter in this notification referred to as the "Table") and falling under sub-item I of Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise...
ion Exchange Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC29
1. This is an appeal filed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) of Central Excise, Bombay.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured Ion Exchange Resins and a product known as co-polymer beads came into existence as a intermediary product in the process of manufacture of the Ion exchange resins. It is seen from the record that co-polymer beads (used for the manufacture of cation exchange resin) are made from divinyl benzene and styrene which are co-polymerised in a polymeri- sation kettle, in the presence of catalyst and stabilizer. The reaction is carried out using suspension polymerisation with water as the suspension media. Once the reaction is completed, co-polymer beads are pulled and later washed free of catalyst and stabiliser. The beads are either dried and screened to remove fines and lumps. In respect of other type of Ion exchanges, i.e., Anion Exchangers, Co-pblymer beads are made from styrene and divinyl benzene ethylene glycol dimethecolate. T...
S.S. Enterprises Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC665Tri(Delhi)
2. Appellants have imported 45 bales of what is described in the Bill of Entry as wool waste (coloured wool thread waste-wool content not less than 60%). The goods are also invoiced accordingly.3. The department issued a Show Cause Notice to the appellants stating that on examination of 6 bales, 59.11% of the goods were found to be serviceable yarn in hanks which could not be considered as wool waste because the yarn could be used straightway. Accordingly, this quantity of yarn, as per the Show Cause Notice, was not classifiable as waste but as normal serviceable yarn attracting duty at the rate of 100% plus 25% plus C.V.D. at Rs. 25/- per Kg. Wool waste attracted duty at the rate of only 5%. It was pointed out in the Show Cause Notice that there had been mis-declaration in regard to this import resulting in loss of duty, apart from the fact that the goods were not covered by the Import Licence.4. We have heard Shri L.U. Balani, advocate for the appellants and Smt.Dolly Saxena, SDR fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »