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.
Hargovinda and Co. Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC263
1. A common issue is involved in these three appeals and as such they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. All these three appellants imported Metalised polyester films of thickness of 0.025 mm/25 micron. The question to be decided is whether these goods are exempted from additional duty of Customs under Notification No. 228/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The Collector (Appeals), by the impugned order, held that those imported Metalized polyester films were foils and did not qualify for exemption under this Notification.2. We have heard Shri Sogani for the appellants and Shri Shishir Kumar for the respondent. Shri Sogani has argued that all these three cases are squarely covered by this Tribunal's order No. 257-258/87-C, dated 25-3-1987 and the judgments of (i) Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Precise Impex (P) Ltd. vs. The Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in 1985 ECR 1111(Madras) = 1985 (21) ELT 85(Madras), (ii) Bombay High Court in the case of. A....
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Tata Mills Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC421Tri(Delhi)
1. The Central Govern ment issued notice dated 30 7 1982 under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act (as it then stood) since it was of the opinion that the order dated 18 8 1981 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay was not proper, legal and correct.Under the said order the Appel late Collector had set aside the order dated 17 2 1981 of the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The order of the Assistant Collector was that the goods in issue (cotton wadding sold as bondtext non woven fabrics) were classifiable as cotton fabric under Item 19 1 CET. The Appellate Collector, as earlier noted, set aside the. order, holding that the goods were not classifiable under Item 19 1. It is the proceedings initiated under the review notice of the Government that are now before us, on transfer, as this deemed appeal.2. We have heard Smt. Saxena for the Department and Shri Gopal Prasad, Consultant for the respondents.3. At the commencement ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Khaitan (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC19
1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the impugned order which allowed the appeal by the respondents and held that for the purpose of Notification No. 198/76 the word "Fan" included regulators also. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) thereby extended the benefit of exemption notification to the respondents.2. The Asstt. Collector in his order held that strictly going by the words in the Notification No. 198/76 the regulators cleared by the respondents were not covered by Serial No. 32 in the table contained in the notification. Therefore, according to him the concessional rate of duty which applied to "Electric fans all sorts" did not extend to the regulators. According to the appellate order the change made by the Finance Act of 1977 to Item No. 33(D) CET rendered the regulators eligible to the concession.3. Shri Nigam, the Learned SDR argued that Notification No. 198/76 mentioned, at Serial No. 32, "Electric Fans all sorts" only. The change in Tarif Item No. 33 brought about ...
U.P. Laminations Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC321
1. The main question arising for decision in this appeal by the appellant-manufacturer - a proprietary concern in the small scale sector is whether for judging the eligibility of the appellants to benefit of exemption under notifications 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 and 80/80 dated 9-6-1980 in respect of laminated paper cleared by them during the period 1978-79 to 1981-82 till 28-2-1982 when laminated paper itself was exempt from payment of Central Excise duty under notification 63/82 dated 28-2-1982, the value of clearances of laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics (HDPE) the two exempt under notification 100/77 dated 3-6-1977 as amended by notification 192/77 dated 18-6-1977 are includible as excisable goods or not 2. Present proceedings arise against the appellants under the following circumstances. The appellants are engaged in laminating cotton fabrics, man made fabrics and paper on job work basis. As already said laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics w...
A.N. Pareekh Vs. N.H. Naqvi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-08-1988
Reported in: AIR1989Delhi277; 34(1988)DLT275; 1988RLR279
P.K. Bahri, J. (1) Shri A.N. Pareekh, tenant, has brought this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the eviction order dated 2/04/1987, of Shri PremKumar, Additional Rent Controller, passed against him on the ground of eviction covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act in respect of the southern unit of house No. Z-7, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the plan Ex. AW1/1.(2) The petitioner has challenged the order of eviction on two grounds,firstly that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises in question had been let out to the petitioner-tenant only for residential purposes is perverse and wrong and secondly, that the Additional Rent Controller has wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord is not in possession of alternate reasonably suitable accommodation.(3) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent has been holding high officia...
Collector of Customs Vs. Rallis Chemicals Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC501Tri(Delhi)
1. The question for decision in this appeal by Revenue is whether the respondents claim for refund should have been rejected as barred by limitation under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).2. As the hearing today, we have heard Smt. J.K. Chander, Departmental Representative for the appellants and Shri D.R. Kohli Consultant for the Respondents. We have also perused the documents.3. The refund relates to amount paid as duty in respect of fertilizers cleared between 1.3.1969 to 20.8.1969 - same having been manufactured before 28.2.1969 - pre-budget stock. There was no levy of Central Excise duty before 1969 budget on fertilizers and fertilizers were subjected to this levy only with effect from the date of this budget i.e. from 1.3.69. Clearances were however, made after this date between the period as aforesaid. The respondents paid duty under protest. It appears that some writ petitions in this connection were filed and Madras High Court ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC58
1. This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents M/s. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company manufacture Caustic Soda and utilize Titanium Substrate insoluble Anodes in the Electrolytic Cells in which the Electrolysis of Sodium Chloride takes place. These Electrodes are purchased by the respondents and duty under Tariff Item 68 was charged thereon. The respondents were refused permission to avail of the credit of the duty paid on these electrodes by way of set off in terms of Notification No. 201/79 by the Asstt. Collector for the reason that since these electrodes were part of the Electrolytic cells and equipment used in the manufacture of the Caustic Soda, the benefit of the notification could not be allowed. The Collector (Appeals) however, took note of the fact that Notification No. 201 of 79-CE extended the benefit of the set off in respect of Item 68. goods used in the ma...
Aarkeyess Imports Corporation Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC52Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants imported a consignment of tractor parts, viz.; piston rings, crankshaft assembly and bushes. They sought to clear the goods against an Import Licence which was specific for 'spares for agricultural machinery'. The Additional Collector, after adjudication, has held that the goods were not covered by the licence description since In the Import Trade Control Schedule Agricultural machinery had a separate classification in Headings 84.24 and 84.25 while tractors were classifiable separately under Headings 87.01 and 87.07. On the ground of Import Licence not being valid, the Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He adjudged the redemption fine for release of the goods at Rs. 2 lakhs and, In addition, Imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, the Additional Collector held that the declared c.i.f. value of the goods (Rs. 87,576/-) was too low and t...
Holiday Inn Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-05-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT417TriDel
1. The appeal is against the order No. S/49-827/82-R dated 7.12.1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay and the dispute is about a dish washing machine imported by M/s. Holiday Inn. The appellants did not appear on the date fixed for hearing 13.1.1988. By a letter dated 8.1.1988, they asked for the appeal to be decided on merits.2. The appellants say that the dish washing machine was imported for the use of their hotel and not for domestic purposes, and it is being used in their hotel for bulk washing. The very nature, weight, size and cost of the machine proves that it would not be suitable for domestic or household purposes. A dish washing machine classifiable under Item 33-C would be small in size and suitable for household purposes or for hotel canteens. The word "similar" used in Tariff Item 33-C should be strictly construed to mean that only dish washing machines capable of being used in households are assessable under it. The large-sized dish washing machine c...
Brijendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC247Tri(Delhi)
1. The prayer in Miscellaneous Petition No. 454/87 is for summoning certain records from the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Since we feel that the appeal could be disposed of on the materials available on record without summoning any further records, we dismiss the petition.2. The prayer in Miscellaneous Petition No. 470/87 is for fixing an early date of hearing of the appeal. Since we propose to dispose of the appeal itself today, as the issue and scope of the same lies on a short compass, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.3. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, dated 28-8-1987 confiscating gold and ornaments weighing 640.480 grams under Section 71 permitting redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of confiscation under Section 73 besides a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Act. On 5-3-1987 the Central Excise authorit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »