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.
H.M.M. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-04-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT419TriDel
1. These appeals arose from the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta No. 550-552/Cal/1979 dated 24-12 1979.Although these cases were heard together with the appeal No. 981 of 1980A, they really fall in a different category and the Appellate Collector himself deals with them in a different order in appeal. These disputes arose for the period before 1-10-1975 when the Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was substituted by a new Section. It needs to be noted that the old Section 4 did not have any definition of the kind that the new Section has defining related persons.2. Not very much arguments were advanced by the two learned counsel on these matters and even their written submissions submitted after the conclusion of the hear ing on 13-11-1987 contained nothing about the disputes that arose from the three orders of the Assistant Collector dealt by the Appellate Collector in his Order No. 550 552/Cal./1979.There is only a revision petition filed ...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. G. Jerambhai Exports Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC395Tri(Delhi)
1. This is a matter in which refund of duty amounting to Rs. 54,689-17 was claimed on 30th March, 1979 in respect of clearances of tea during the period 4-4-1978 to 25-9-1978. This was rejected by the Asstt.Collector in his order-in-original on grounds of time bar under the then Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Collector (Appeals), however, considered the plea of the respondents that the base clearance of package tea in respect of the respondent's factory was fixed and intimated to the respondents only on 30th October, 1978, and that since appellants could make the claim for refund only after the department had fixed the base clearance, which was done on 30th October, 1978, the filing of the claim on 30th March, 1979 was well within the prescribed time limit. Up-holding this contention, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed that the appellant's claim for refund be considered on merits by treating it as having been filed in ti...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Mahanadi Fine Art Litho Works
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC637Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by the department against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) who has held that printed wrappers are products of printing industry and are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 122/75-C.E., dated 5-5-1975.2. We have heard Shri Balbir Singh, JDR for the department and Shri R..1. Majra, Advocate for the respondent.3. Shri Balbir Singh reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the main function of the wrappers being packing, they cannot qualify as a product of printing industry. In view of their functional use for purposes of packaging, they have to be considered as product of packaging industry. The learned JDR submits that he relies on the decision in the case of Golden Press v. Dy. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad and Another - 1987 (27) ELT 273.4. Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR who intervened at this stage submitted that the department would also rely on the decision in the case of the Card Board Box Manufacturing Co. - 1984 (17) ELT 4...
Elgi Polytex Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)ECC14
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30-4-1987 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, confirming the classification of a product called Rubber Cement or Black Vulcanising Cement manufactured by the appellants under Heading No.40.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (GET, for short) as ordered by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, by his order dated 16-10-1986. Though the submissions as regards the heading of the tariff schedule under which the goods are to be classified have been put forth differently at different points of time, the facts, insofar as they are relevant for the determination of the proper classification, not being in dispute, the question of classification becomes essentially one of law and, therefore, the fact that different submissions were made before the lower authorities and now before us would not come in the way of the appellants urging before us now what, according to them, shoul...
Kesoram Cement Vs. Collector of C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT413TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured the product described as 'ANFO' which is manufactured by mixing Ammonium Nitrate and diesel oil/furnace oil without obtaining the Central Excise licence and utilised the same captively without payment of Central Excise duty. A duty of Rs. 1,13,401.33 paise has been demanded by the lower authority in respect of ANFO manufactured and utilised during the period 1.3.86 to 31.10.86 holding the goods to be assessable under Chapter Heading 3601.00 treating the same to be prepared explosives.2. The learned advocate for the appellants pleaded that ANFO is nothing but a simple mixture of Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. He pleaded that the appellants purchased duty paid prilled Ammonium nitrate assessable under Tariff Heading 68, and mixed 100 units of Ammonium Nitrate with 6 units of furnace oil and a simple mixture thus obtained is what constituted A...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Rekho Glass Electricals
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT409TriDel
1. Under order dated 23-8-1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Yeshwantpur classified the Varnished Fibre Glass Sleevings manufactured by the respondents M/s. Rekho Glass Electrical Insultations, Bangalore under Item No. 22-F(iv) CET and further held that they were exempted under Notification No. 87/77-C.E., dated 16-3-1976. The Department carried the matter in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who under his order dated 16-9-1983 confirmed both findings of the Assistant Collector and dismissed the appeal. It is against the said order that the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore as filed the present appeal.2. The notice sent to the respondents has been returned with the postal endorsement "left W/I". We find that this appeal has been preferred on 13-2-1984 and was thus preferred after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore has, therefore, enclosed an application for condonation of ...
Hatim Carbon Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC241Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case it is alleged that the appellant company manufactured excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise licence and cleared them without payment of duty. The matter was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. He demanded Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 13,42,629.22 on carbon brushes and slot wedges manufactured and cleared by the appellant from 1979-80 to May, 1984 13,149 pcs. of carbon brushes which were seized at the time of making of the case were confiscated, the appellant being allowed to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards the value of the goods which had been provisionally released to the appellant company. A personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) was also imposed on the appellant.2. Heard Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant for the appellant company and Shri Vineet Kumar, SDR for the department.3. The learned Consultant submits that the appellant company is not making general purpose carbon brushes and slot wedges. It is contended that the carbon brus...
Collector of Customs Vs. Godrej Soaps Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC134
1. Being aggrieved with the order of refund of the additional duty to the Respondent, the department have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop :- The respondent imported a consignment of 'Myristic Acid 95% from Malaysia and the same was assessed to duty under Heading 29.01/45(1) of the C.T.A. 1975 with levy of additional duty under Heading 68 of the C.E.T. After clearance of the goods importers respondent herein preferred a claim for refund of the additional duty paid by them on the ground that Myristic Acid was a fractionated Fatty Acid which should be classified and assessed under Heading "15.08/13 of the C.E.T. and that the same were exempted from payment of additional duty in terms of the Customs Notification No.48/79, dated 1-3-1979. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the said refund claim of the respondent holding that the imported goods were classifiable as a chemical and not as Fatty Acid as claimed by the respondent. On appeal the Collector of Customs (Appeal...
The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(15)ECC311
1. Notice dated 15.12.1981 was issued to the appellants, M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., as to why duty should not be demanded from them Under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the sawn Paratty and saw dust cleared by them during the period 1976-77 to 1980-81 and why penalty should not be imposed on them in that connection. After receipt of reply the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad adjudicated on the matter and under order dated 24.3.1982 held that duty was payable but limited the demand to the six months period preceding the notice. He did not impose any penalty. The revision petition preferred against the said order to the Central Board of Excise and Customs is, on transfer, the deemed appeal before us.2. We have heard Shri D.N. Mehta, advocate for the appellants and Shri Sachar for the department.3. Before us Shri Mehta contended that the sawn Paratty and saw dust are not excisable products manufactured by the appellants and so no duty could be demanded thereon. H...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Ettayya Match Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-01-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT275TriDel
1. The issue in this appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras is whether the respondents M/s. Ettayya Match Industries were eligible for payment of duty at the concessional rate under notification 43/81 in respect of matches cleared by them packed in boxes containing not 50 matches but less. The Assistant Collector held that they were not.Therefore, he confirmed the demand raised for payment of differential duty on their past clearances and further imposed penalty of Rs. 1,000.00. He ordered confiscation, subject to redemption, of the seized goods. The Collector (Appeals) held that the respondents were entitled to benefit under the notification. He further held that even if duty could be demanded that could be only for the normal period of six months preceding show cause notice. He confirmed the penalty against which there has been no appeal by the assessee.2. We have heard Shri Sachar for the department. Respondents had indicated that they could not be appearing before us. W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »