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.
Kothari and Company Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT155TriDel
1. The appellants imported, under 2 Bills of Entry filed on 9.8.1984 and 18.10.1984, goods described as components for Auto Topless Umbrella Frames and in one case also spare parts. The Customs Department felt that the licence produced by the appellants was not valid for importation of the goods and that the value declared by the appellants was less than correct value. Show cause notices were therefore issued to the appellants on both counts.2. After due process the Collector adjudicated the case and he found against the appellants on both counts. He confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and gave option to redeem the goods on payment of fines of Rs.3 lakhs each in respect of the two Bills of Entry. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each and ordered that the assessable value of the imported goods be increased to US $ to 3.55 and 3.75 per Dozen in respect of the two varieties. Accordingly the value declared in Bill of Entry No. 702 was increased from Rs. ...
Shriram Vinyal and Chemical Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT292TriDel
1. The dispute in the present matter relates to a cylinder (in 3 parts) imported by the appellants as spare parts for their caustic soda and PVC Resin Plant. The lower authorities upheld the classification of the goods under Heading No. 68.01/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule, dismissing the appellants' claim that the goods, being parts of combustion chamber of a chemical plant, were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 84.17 of the Customs Tariff Schedule.2. We have heard Shri V. Sreedharan, Advocate, for the appellants and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR for the respondents.3. As seen from the invoice, the goods under consideration are composed of a material called DIABON-N. The manufacturers are "SIGRI ELEKTROGRAPHIT GMBH". The manufacturer's catalogue describes the process of manufacture of DIABON-N. Carbon is converted to graphite by heating it to temperatures upto 3000C when graphitisation takes place.By a process of impregnation with synthetic resin, the material becomes impermeable...
Collector of Customs Vs. Rashtriya Metal Industries
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC195
1. The appellants imported 40 tons of copper scrap from Dubai on 22-3-1979. They claimed that this scrap was not liable to countervailing duty (C.V. duty) as tariff item 26A, GET as it stood prior to the insertion of sub-item 1(b) on 1-3-1981 did not include waste and scrap, and that tariff item 68, CET did not cover such scrap.The Assistant Collector rejected this claim by an order dated 5-7-1979.The appellants filed an appeal and the Appellate Collector allowed the appeal on 23 10-1980. The Government issued show cause notices to the appellant under Section 131(3) of Customs Act, asking them to show cause why C.V. Duty should not be demanded on the goods under tariff item 26A, CET and why the Collector (Appeals) order should not be annulled or modified. This notice transferred to the Tribunal is being dealt with as an appeal by revenue.2. We heard Shri J. Gopinath, SDR for the revenue and Shri M.L. Lahoty, advocate for the respondents.3. Shri Gopinath submitted that Government's not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›