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.
C.C.E. Vs. K.V. Cables and Conductors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-16-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC401Tri(Delhi)
1. The relevant facts of this appeal are that the respondents M/s. K.V.Cables & Conductors submitted a refund claim pertaining to Central Excise duty paid by them between the dates 1.7.1980 to 16.9.1980. This refund claim was received by the Assistant Collector on 15.6.1981. The ground for the refund application was that the total aggregate value of clearance by the factory during the financial year 1980-81 was less than 15 lakhs rupees, as a result of which the appellants (who cleared the goods on payment of duty) became eligible to concessional assessment under Notification No. 80/80-CE.2. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim on the ground that the refund application was received by him after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act.3. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The Collector held that the period of limitation in the cases where the exemption was bas...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-15-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT156TriDel
1. Issue involved in this appeal is classification of 'stop-light-switches' and "low pressure warning switches'.Appellant-Collector contends that these fall under Item 61 of CET pertaining to 'electric lighting fittings' whereas the respondent contends that these switches fall under the residuary Item 68.2. The Learned SDR Smt. Vijay Zutshi, while conceding that the matter is covered against the Department by Tribunal's order in the case of Automotive Ancillary Services [1987 (32) ELT 735 (Trib.)] reiterates the grounds of appeal.3. Learned advocate Shri Lakshmikumaran submits that besides the above order of the Tribunal, there is another order No. 279/88-D dated 11.4.88 of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Brakes India Ltd., against the department in so far as 'stop-light switches' are concerned.4. Having heard both sides and re lying on the earlier orders of the Tribunal mentioned supra, we dismiss the appeal of the Department.Operative part of the o...
Parasmal Bhansali Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)(39)ELT443TriDel
1. Short question involved in this appeal is the classification of goods described in the bill of entry as "stainless steel circles defective". Examination report of the goods further reveals that these are circles of diameter ranging from 255mm to 355mm. The department assessed it under CTA Tariff Heading 73.15(2). The appellants thereafter filed a refund claim claiming assessment under CTA Tariff Heading 73.15(t) Or alternatively under Tariff Heading 73.03/05 or 73.33/40. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that "as per note l(n) to Chapter 73, Heading No. 73.13 is to be taken to apply, inter alia, to sheets or plates which have been cut to non-rectangular shape. The shape "circle" is, therefore, covered by 73.13 and stainless steel circles are covered by 73.15(2). Hence the original assessment is in order." The appellants on appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) also failed on the same grounds. The learned Collector...
Jenson and Nicholson (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC598Tri(Delhi)
1. Show cause notice dated 10.2.1978 was issued to the appellants M/s.Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. alleging that after having obtained classification of their product "Linseed Oil Modified Glycerol Alkyd" under item 14-11(i) of the Central Excise Tariff, they had, during the period 7.11.1969 to 23.6.1974, altered the constituents of the product in such a manner that it became classifiable under item 15-A(1)(i) CET but without intimation of this change to the Central Excise authorities and, therefore, their removals of the same during the said period without payment of duty was not proper. They were, therefore, called upon to show cause why duty on the said product during the said period should not be recovered and penalty also imposed. It was further mentioned in the notice that when, after a search of the premises, the relevant documents were seized it was found that the documents had been tampered with in order to make out a case for exemption. The appellants replied denying ...
Kanwal Pal Singh Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC34Tri(Delhi)
1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned advocate for the appellants regarding the Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise who has passed the Impugned order. Short point raised by Mm Is that the Additional Collector of Central Excise has not been appointed as Additional Collector of Customs In terms of Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has pointed out that while there Is a Notification No. 252/83-Cus., dated 27-8-1983 appointing, inter alia, different Collectors of Central Excise, Deputy Collectors of Central Excise and Assistant Collector of Central Excise posted under them as the Collectors of Customs, Deputy Collector of Customs and Assistant Collector of Customs respectively within their jurisdictions. There is no such appointment for Additional Collector of Central Excise as Additional Collector of Customs.2. The learned advocate, therefore, asserts that the Excise, Kanpur, no doubt having jurisdiction ...
Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(37)ELT81TriDel
1. Under notice dated 21.12.1982 M/s. Haryana State Electricity Board, Dhulkote, Ambala City was intimated that during the period 1.2.1981 to 30.8.1982 they had manufactured and cleared a total number of 1602 transformers (classifiable under item 68-CET) without payment of Central Excise duty and-without observance of Central Excise formalities and they were, therefore, to show cause why duty thereon should not be demanded and penalty also imposed. Under their reply thereto dated 14,1.1983 they deposited the duty demanded (Rs. 18,73,669.47 paise) immediately but sought for a personal hearing so that they may make their submissions, in reply to the notice. After affording a personal hearing the Collector under his order dated 29 7.1983 confirmed the duty demand and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. This appeal is against the said order.2. We have heard Shri P.D. Jain and Shri J.D. Jain, Advocates for the appellants and Shri L.C. Chakraborty for the Department.3. Under miscella...
Pravera Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-14-1988
Reported in: (1988)(19)LC365Tri(Delhi)
1. Since a common question is involved in all the three appeals, a common order is being passed.2. Short question involved in these appeals is interpretation of notification 132/82 dated 21.4.1982 as amended by notification 193/82 dated 11.6.1982 and (ii) notification No. 135/83 dated 30.4.1983.3. Briefly stated the controversy centres around the fact whether in arriving at average production of sugar during the corresponding period (May to Sept) of the preceding three sugar years, the period during which no production of sugar has taken place in any of the preceding three years is to be ignored or not. In other words, for example with reference to notification 132/82 if there has been no production of sugar during the period May-Sept. 1979 and there has been a production during May-Sept. 1980 & 1981 the average production has to be calculated by adding the production of the later two years and dividing it by 2 or dividing it by 3 or to take another extreme example in the aforesai...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(41)ELT277TriDel
1. The issue arising for determination in this appeal lies in a narrow compass. It is whether the department is justified in demanding duty of Rs. 3143.36 on a quantity of 4.465 Metric Tonnes of fatty acids manufactured by the respondents and removed within the factory for production of other goods. The said quantity was not in fact used for the aforesaid production. It is the case of the respondents that the said goods were destroyed in a fire accident which occurred in the factory premises. While the Assistant Collector held that duty must be paid, the Collector (Appeals) held that it need not be.2. Central Excise Notification No. 118/75 in terms of which the goods were removed free of duty from the place of production to the hydrogeneration plant within the same factory for further manufacture, exempts goods falling under Item 68 and intended for use in the factory of manufacture or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Punjab Bone Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC17
1. This is an appeal filed by Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.The brief facts of the case are that the respondents manufacture Di-Calcium Phosphate of animal feed grade assessable under TI-68. They, however, filed'refund claim in respect of the clearances made during the period Feb. 78 to July 79 claiming the benefit of Notification No.55/75-CE under which animal feed has been exempted from payment of duty. The original authority rejected their claim for refund. The Collector (Appeals) however allowed their claim. His findings for convenience of reference are reproduced below :- "I find that while rejecting the refund claim of the appellants, the ACCE, had observed that the product of the appellant is mixed upto 1 to 2 per cent and is a component of compound live stock feed although she accepted the contention of the appellant that their product could be fed directly to the animals. Exemption under Notificat...
Hico Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)LC731Tri(Delhi)
1. The common issue involved in these two appeals is whether "Lauryl alcohol" imported by the appellants, was classifiable under heading No.15.08/13 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as claimed by the appellants or under Heading No. 29.01/45(1) of the Schedule as claimed by the Revenue. Both the lower authorities found against the appellants. The claims of the appellants on the basis of the classification claimed by them for refund of the excess customs duty recovered were also dismissed by the lower authorities.2. We have heard Shri S.R. Tamhane, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri C.V. Durghayya, D.R., for the respondent.3. Shri Tahrnane, pointed out that the issue in these appeals stood concluded in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Hico Products Ltd. (the present appellants themselves) reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 645. This decision has been followed in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »