Delhi Court June 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.
Anand Jaisal Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-27-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC243Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant herein is running a videotorium in his home town. On 21.7.1986 Central Excise Preventive Officers visited the residential as well as the business premises i.e. videotorium and recovered certain imported goods. After due adjudication the following goods have been confiscated by the adjudicating authority under Section 111(P):- (1) 2 VCRs - one VCR recovered at videotorium and other one at his residential premises. However, an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 15.000/- has been given by the adjudicating authority. (2) Camera (Olympic) - recovered from the residential premises alongwith the flash has been confiscated absolutely.Apart from the confiscation of the aforesaid goods a penalty of Rs. 5.000/- has also been imposed, inter alia, on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.In coming to a finding of confiscation of the VCRs, the learned adjudicating authority has held that the appellant herein at the time of seizure no doubt stated that...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pharmasia Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-24-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT77TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 88/84(H) dated 23.4.84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The facts, briefly stated, are that, by notice dated 14.9.83, M/s.Pharmasia Private Ltd. (the respondents to the present appeal) were called upon to show cause why duty amounting to Rs.1,29,447.38 should not be demanded from them inasmuch as they were not eligible for duty concession under Central Excise Notification No. 80/80, dated 19.6.80 since their total value of clearances had exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. By reply dated 20.10.83, the respondents contested the notice. The Assistant Collector found that there were no clearances of the "specified goods" (i.e. goods specified in the notification as eligible for duty exemption) in 1981-82. Production was commenced in June, 1982. The aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods during 1982-83 was Rs. 24,32,551.78. Therefore, in accordance with para 5 of the notification,...
Himachal Steel Kandrori Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC455Tri(Delhi)
1. Being dissatisfied with the rejection of a part of refund claim the appellants have filed their instant appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants lodged their refund claim for Rs. 37,907.90 which had arisen on account of Trade Notice No. 34/78, dated 18.7.1978 under which the goods manufactured by the appellants were classified under T.I. 26AA(ia) instead of T.I. 26A(III) which were exempted from payment of duty. Refund claim amounting to Rs. 10,985.53 was sanctioned by the then Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Chandigarh and rest of the claim was rejected being barred by limitation vide his Order dated 23.8.1979. Against this Order of rejection of the refund claim in part the appellants went in appeal before the Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, who vide his Order-in-Appeal No. 178-CE-CHG/82, dated 18.11.1982 held the claim within time and in view of his findings that the claim was within time he directed the Assistant Collector to examine the claim on merits and pass...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Calcutta Chromotype (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC269Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal filed by Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta.The issue involved in the appeal is the levy of duty under Tariff Item 68 in respect of the goods described as Printed cartons, Writing pad covers. etc. manufactured by the respondents during the period 18.7.77 to 31.3.1978 and the duty amount Involved is Rs. 4451.80 P.2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufactured goods falling under Tariff item 68 CET on their account as also on job work basis. The value of the capital investment made on plant and machinery in the respondents unit was found to be over Rs. 20 lakhs and they were held to be liable to pay Central Excise duty and not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 176/77 dated 18.6.77. In the proceedings before the Original authority, the appellants pleas are recorded as under - "In reply to the show cause notice, the said company In their written submission dated 30th...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Diem Castings
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT439TriDel
1. Taking up first the application for condonation of delay, the learned SDR for the appellant-collector has submitted that there is a delay of only two days inasmuch as the impugned-order was received on 12.6.1984 (mistakenly it has been mentioned in the appeal Form EA-3 as 1.6.1984 which is the actual date of despatch of the impugned order on the belief that the date of issue of the impugned order is to be mentioned against Item 3 of the said EA-3 form) and the appeal has been filed on 14th Sept. 1984 whereas it was required to be filed on 12.9.1984. The appellant-Collector has stated in COD application that the appeal had been despatched on 10.9.1954 and the delay, therefore, was due to the time taken by the postal authorities. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, we condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the learned SDR on the appeal filed by the appellant-Collector.The respondent company vide then-letter dated 173.1988 in response to a notice for earlier date of heari...
H. Guru Instruments (North India) Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-20-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC357Tri(Delhi)
1. We have heard Shri M.D. Chowdhary, Advocate, for the appellants' and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the department.2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case and the ramifications of the dispute in any detail for the disposal of this appeal in the view we propose to take.3. The notice to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why duty should not be demanded from them was issued by the Deputy Collector on 21-1-1986, the period for which duty was proposed to be demanded being 1-10-1983 to 25-7-1985. Cause was required to be shown to the Collector. On 27-12-1985, Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act had been brought into force in terms of which in a case where the Revenue proposed to invoke the extended period of 5 years for demand of duty from a manufacturer alleging suppression, wilful mis-statement of facts etc. on the part of the manufacturer, the notice to show cause should be issued by the Collector. As held by the Tribunal in Mysore Prefabs and Prefabs...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. A.C.C. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1988
Reported in: (1989)(44)ELT271TriDel
1. Main question involved in this appeal is whether the mill bolts manufactured by the respondent company herein are liable to duty under Central Excise Tariff Item 52 or 68. The department had assessed the said mill bolts under Tariff Item 52, whereas the respondent company contends that they are classifiable under Tariff Item 68.On appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta the respondent company's plea was accepted and these were ordered to be assessed under Tariff Item 68. Hence this appeal by the department.2. Learned SDR contends that as already admitted by the respondent company in their reply dated 11th August, 1982 that the mill bolts are used lot fixing the lining plates into the mills, without which the main machinery i.e. mills cannot function. Therefore, there is no doubt, according to the learned SDR, that the only function of the mill bolts under consideration is that of fastening the lining plates of the machinery. That being so, they are clearly...
JaIn Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-17-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC429Tri(Delhi)
1. These appeals are against Order-in-Original No. 23/Collr/MP/82 dated 18.8.1982 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. By this order, the Collector- (a) imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs under Rules 9(2), 52A, 226 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ("the Rules", for short) on Jain Industries; (b) confiscated seized goods valued at Rs. 85,129.82 under Rules 173Q but allowed an option for redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-; and (c) demanded under Rule 9(2) payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,96,800.43 on excisable goods (steel-furniture) cleared during the period 1975-76 to 1979-80.2. We have heared Shri. V. Sreedharan, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty, DR, for the respondent.3. A few undisputed facts may be stated M/s. Jain Industries had an industrial unit at No. 87, Acharya Nagar, Kanpur, where furniture was being manufactured but without the aid of power. M/s. Techmechos had an industrial unit at 55, ...
Vikrant Tyres Vs. C. C. E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC30Tri(Delhi)
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether, for the purpose of Notifications 95/79-C.E. and No. 201/79-C.E. there should be a direct nexus between inputs and final products. This question arose because the appellants filed classification lists (Nos. 29,30,31 & 32) claiming proforma credit/set off of duty, in terms of Notification No.95/79-C.E. as amended by Notification No. 58/82-C.E. as well as under Notification No. 201/79-C.E. as amended in respect of tyres manufactured and cleared by them as O.E. tyres cleared under bond under Chapter X procedure. A notice was issued to the appellants proposing the denial of their claim for set off proforma credit under Notifications Nos. 95/79 & 201/79-C.E. in respect of inputs used by them in the manufacture of those tyres which were cleared without payment of duty under bond for home consumption. The Asstt. Collector after hearing the appellants extended the benefit. The Department went in appeal against the Asstt. Collector'...
Bharat Commerce and Industries Vs. C.C.E.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC103Tri(Delhi)
1. In this matter Appellants are undertaking job work of doubling and twisting yarn of two different varieties which are supplied to them by others. The resultant yarn is known as Fancy Yarn. As per classification list approved on 20-12-1979, appellants were permitted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 119/75 and to pay duty on job charges which were paid to the appellants by the customers. Later on, the Assistant Collector changed his earlier orders and held that the benefit of notification No. 119/75 could not be extended to the appellant. This order was confirmed in Order-in-Appeal.2. We have heard Shri D.N. Kohli, Consultant on behalf of the appellant company and Shri K.C. Sachar, JDR on behalf of the department.3. The learned consultant submits that Assistant Collector Central Excise, Patiala approved the classification list 19/79-80 on 20-12-79 allowing the benefit of Notification No. 119/75. However on 18-1 -80, appellants received a letter No. 6(68)30/11 /Val/C/79/457, d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »