Delhi Court March 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.
Poonam Plastic Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT634TriDel
1. The two questions arise in this appeal. One relates to the aspect of licence and another to the value of the goods imported by the appellants.2. The appellants imported, under Bill of Entry No. 764/14, 30 M.T.Plastic Sheets and declared a value of DM 93,000/- (3,72,447.00) CIF.The Customs in a notice issued to the appellants (and others) alleged that the goods were mis-declared and that the value was under-declared.The suspicions of the Customs were aroused because in the invoice the goods were described as 30 M.T. Plastic Sheets, a description considered to be vague as particulars of brand, grade, nature of plastic, shade, manufacturer's name etc. were not given in the invoice.The invoice mentioned a lumpsum value but not value per M.T. Also the copy of the packing list of the suppliers (not the original), was not the xerox copy of the original copy retired from the Bank. Further the packing list described the goods as "C.N. Plastic Sheet" giving rise to the belief that the goods ...
Khanikar Tea Estate Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC13Tri(Delhi)
1. By issue of Notification No. 90/70-C.E., dated 1-5-1970, Central Government divided tea growing areas into zones fixing different rates of duties on tea, produced in different zones. At this point of time, Dibrugam was a sub-division in the district of Lakhimpur, which was placed under Zone V of the Notification carrying the highest rate of duty, i.e., Rs. 1.30 per kilogram.2. After issue of the 90/70 Notification, the Government of Assam formed the new administrative district known as the district of Dibrugarh with effect from 2-10-1971. It was constituted into a separate district with its headquarters at Dibrugarh and it ceased to form a part of the district of Lakhimpur.3. Notification No. 90/70, dated 1 -5-1970 remained in force until it was amended by issue of a new Notification No. 184/81, dated 5-11 -1981. Appellants claim that in this Notification, tea estates falling in the area comprised in the district of Dibrugarh were not mentioned specifically, and therefore, these ar...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC164
1. By the impugned order the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay disposed of 8 appeals filed before him. As the issue involved in all these appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. Shri N.V. Raghavan Iyer has argued for the respondents M/s. Indian, Oil Corporation Ltd. and Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan has argued for M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. None has appeared for M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.3. We have heard Shri Sunder Rajan, learned J.D.R. for the appellant-Collector and S/Shri Raghavan Iyer and Kunhikrishnan for M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited respectively.4. The issue involved in these appeals is whether unrebated rate of duty as prescribed in the notification issued under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was payable in respect of aviation turbine fuel supplied by the respondents to the foreign bound aircrafts in bond under Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rule...
Arunachal Plywood Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT695TriDel
1. As against the order dated 13-9-1979 of the Assistant Collector giving the reasons for the finalisation of the pricelists effective from 1-10-1975 to 31-3-1976 filed by the appellants M/s. Arunachal Plywood Industries Ltd, they preferred a revision petition to the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. Under letter dated 22-10-1980 the Central Board transmitted the same to the Collector of Central Excise, Shillong as he was the competent authority to review the order of the Assistant Collector. The Collector, under his order dated 14-11-1980, rejected the revision petition. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the Central Government against the same. It is now before us, as this deemed appeal, on transfer.2. We have heard Shri D.K Mukhopedhaya, advocate for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborti for the department.3. In the earlier part of the order we have not referred to the facts in detail in view of the nature of ...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT428TriDel
1. The question for decision in this appeal by the Revenue is whether rate of duty and tariff valuation should be as on the date of actual removal of goods from factory or warehouse in terms of Rule 9A(1)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or as on the date of payment of duty under Rule 9A(5) ibid. While the Assistant Collector applied Rule 9A(5), the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) applied 9A( l)(ii) and reduced the demand of duty from 8% to 1%. Hence the present appeal.2. At the hearing of the appeal Shri Chakraborty, JDR submitted that the rate of duty and tariff valuation should be under Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 9A i.e., as on the date of payment of duty. Controverting his submission Shri H.S. Mew, Advocate defended the impugned order and submitted that the Collector (Appeals) has rightly applied Rule 9A(1)(ii) as in the present case the date of actual removal of goods was known to the Revenue. In support of his argument he relied on the following two decisions.Hastings Mill Ltd....
Hmt Limited Vs. C.C.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC45
1. The appellants M/s. HMT Limited claimed, in connection with the import by them of a Sound Vibration Analyzing System, assessment in terms of Notification No. 243/78-Cus., dated 26.12.1978, claiming that the same fell under serial No. 5 of the table to the notification. The Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) having rejected the same this appeal has been filed.2. We have heard Shri Sunil Sharma, Purchase and Liaison Officer of the appellants and Smt. Zutshi for the department.3. For benefit under Notification 243/78 the goods, falling under Chapter 90 CTA, should have been designed for testing purpose in the automotive industry. From the order of the Collector it is clear that the subject goods are capable of use in several diverse industries and are not specially designed for use in the automotive industry only. The Collector observed that this fact has not been disputed by the appellants. Nor has any catalogue etc. been produced before us to controvert this conc...
Amrit Vanaspati Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC127
1. Smt. Malini Sud, Advocate for the appellant and Shri K.P. Singh, SDR and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, JDR for the respondent heard and papers perused.2. The question for decision in these appeals is whether Nickel Catalyst, Activated Carbon and Phosphoric Acid are raw materials or components for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 201/79, dated 4.6.1979 after its amendment by Notification No. 105/82, dated 1.3.1982.3. Smt. Sud herself drew our attention to our earlier decision in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Anr. v. Kashmir Vanaspati and Anr. 1987 (31) ELT 218 (Tribunal) where inter alia Nickel catalyst, bleaching activated earth were held not to be raw materials for the manufacture of vegetable product, the finished product involved in the present appeals also. As for the third item Phosphoric Acid, Smt. Sud explained that it is a cleansing agent and its role qua the notification is similar to the other two materials aforesaid. She agreed that the ratio of the...
Shri Kanwal Pal Singh and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC779Tri(Delhi)
1. The present applications arise out of the captioned appeals. The applicants have made a prayer for raising the additional grounds of appeal as ground of appeal No. 18. Shri A.K. Jain, the learned advocate has pleaded that the applicants could not raise this ground of appeal before the lower authorities and in the memo of appeal filed by the appellants. This ground of appeal was not incorporated. He has pleaded that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause for not raising the ground of appeal earlier and states that in case the applicants are not permitted to raise this ground of appeal at this stage the applicants shall suffer a irreparable loss. In support of the arguments he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976 (37) STC 533] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "unless there was some provision either in the Act or in the Rules framed which precluded the assessee from raising a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(16)ECC138
1. Classification list No. 7/83 was filed by the respondents M/s.Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd., marking the same to be effective from 28-2-1982. They had mentioned certain products therein under the heading '"enamelware-glasslined equipments and articles", describing the same under three separate headings A, B and C. They had claimed with reference thereto that the same were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 234/82-C.E., dated 1-11-1982, as amended. In that connection notice dated 14-7-1983 was issued to them as to why the exemption claimed should not be refused. After receipt of reply from the respondents the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Anand adjudicated on the matter and under his order dated 11-4-1984 denied the benefit of exemption claimed by the respondents and directed that duty was payable under item No. 68-CET. The said order was set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay under his order dated 28-11-1986. This appeal by ...
Smt. Chander Bala Modi Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)27ITD81(Delhi)
1. This is assessee's second appeal arising out of gift-tax proceedings for assessment year 1984-85. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material placed before us.2. The assessee filed a return of gift on 30-7-1984 showing a taxable gift of Rs. 95,000. Later, a revised return was filed on 24-4-1986 showing that there was no gift at all. The facts are that on 19-8-1983 the assessee transferred, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to her daughter Miss Archana Modi. The amount was paid through cheque and the cheque was forwarded to the assessee's husband and the father and natural guardian of Archana Modi, i.e., Seth Vinay Kumar Modi along with a letter dated 19-8-1983 as below: Since our daughter, Miss Archana Modi, has crossed the age of 16 years, both of us are under an obligation to marry her. I have, therefore, set apart Rs. 1 lac for her marriage. A cheque No. 085574 of even date in her favour drawn on State Bank of In...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »