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.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Cawnpore Sugar Works Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-13-1988
Reported in: (1989)(23)LC225Tri(Delhi)
1. In this case the facts are that as per show cause notice issued to the appellants on 1.6.1979, the respondents were provisionally allowed a credit of duty Rs. 2,71,028.16 on 5019.04 qtls. of free sale sugar, calculated to be excess production under Notification No. 108/78-CE dated 28.4.1978. The department, however, found on examination of the factory records that the respondents had cleared the said free sale sugar on payment of duty of Rs. 1,24,095.76 only. It thus appeared that the respondents had taken a credit of Rs. 1,46,932.40 in excess of the amount actually paid by them and they were therefore required to show cause why this amount should not be debited to their Personal Ledger Account.2. Reply to this show cause notice was sent by the respondent on 23 July, 1979. On consideration of this reply a further notice dated 22.1.1980 was issued to the respondents that the differential amount recoverable from them appeared to be Rs. 1,48,744.34 instead of Rs. 1,46,932 40 as intima...
O.K. Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC125Tri(Delhi)
1. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants imported a consignment of goods describing the same as "Methyl Acrylate Polymer Shinkolite P-MDP" and CIF value US $ 20.400.00 in the bill of entry filed for clearance of the goods. The Bill of entry was accompanied by invoice dated 12-6-1985 issued by M/s. Kasai Shoji Co. Ltd., Japan, bill of lading No. 108 1829C, dated 2-6-1985 and certificate of origin No. CTC BO 39941, dated 12-6-1985. The appellants claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix-6 (1) of the Import Policy AM 85-88. No.OGL declaration, SSI Registration etc. were, however, furnished in support thereof. The goods were examined and representative samples were drawn from the consignment and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist of the Customs House for chemical analysis. As per the test report of the Chemical Laboratory, the imported goods are "Polymethyl Methacrylate" and not "Methyl Acrylate Polymer" as declared by the importers.Representative samples drawn from the c...
Ashok Gupta Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jun-10-1988
Reported in: 35(1988)DLT269; 1988RLR442
Mahinder Narain, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by Ashok Gupta, for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for the purpose of quashing the order of detention No. F. No. 673/81/ 88-CUS-VIII dated 8-3-88 and to set at liberty the petitioner at liberty forthwith. (2) The petitioner states that he is a B.Sc., that he started his own concern by the name of 'Arena Electronics' at his residence, and was carrying on the business as Indenting Agents i.e. Diplomatic Mail Order Busines:-. (3) The grounds on which the order of detention has been passed, are detailed in Annexure 'A' collectively, (4) According tothe grounds of detention, there was a person called Kumar Sambhav, who had gone for collection of a consignment that had been booked from Hongkong in the name of Mr. Sameuddin of Afghan Embassy. This consignment contained the articles which were not covered by the documents in connection with the import by the Diplomat. (5) Various grounds h...
AmIn Abdul Gani Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: (1988)(18)LC332Tri(Delhi)
1. The learned Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection stating that Order-in-Original was passed by Shri K.S.Sivaraman in his capacity as Deputy Collector of Customs and as such, appeal against that order shall lie before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the said order. He, therefore, argued that appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. The learned advocate for the appellant argued that Shri K.S. Sivaraman passed the impugned order in his capacity as Additional Collector of Customs. He also stated that Shri K.S. Sivaraman was appointed as Additional Collector of Customs, Delhi w.e.f. 8.12.86 vide Gazette Notification in 1/87 dated 10.10.1987. He has, therefore, contended that appeal against the impugned order should lie before this Tribunal and not before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. He has stated that the appeal is maintainable and hence, should be heard and dec...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd.
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-08-1988
Reported in: (1989)28ITD125(Delhi)
1. By this reference application the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala has required the Tribunal to refer the following questions stated to be questions of law which are stated to arise out of the order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1881/Del./1984 relating to the assessment year 1978-79: 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that the Campa Bottles of the assessee were a 'Plant' in contradiction to Coca Cola, Panta, Soda and Funday bottles?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the findings of the CIT (Appeals) that the treatment of 'Campa' Bottles a 'Plant' and Coca-Cola, Fanta, Soda and Funday Bottles as consumable stores is a method of accounting ?" 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the 'case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (App...
Haresh Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-07-1988
Reported in: (1989)(40)ELT122TriDel
The appellants herein imported two consignment of 350 USP liquid paraffin, heavy. The original assessment of these goods were made by the Customs authorities under Tariff Heading 27.10(1) Customs Tariff Act read with Item 68 Central Excise Tariff. The appellants thereafter filed two refund applications on the ground that the goods imported are a drug and should be classified under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 and are exempted from countervailing duty (C.V.D.) under Notification No. 55/75. The original authority, namely Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims as untenable on the ground that the appellants herein have neither mentioned end product nor they have furnished drug licence, flow chart to show the end use of the item imported as drug intermediate manufactured in their factory. On appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), the said Collector admitted the contention of the appellants herein that the goods imported were drugs. He has, however, observed that in orde...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Oriental Scientific Dyers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-06-1988
Reported in: (1989)(43)ELT689TriDel
1. The respondents herein were engaged in processing man-made fabrics falling under Tariff Item 22 of Central Excise Tariff on power operated machines without obtaining Central Excise licence. The processes carried on by them were dyeing and drying. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173-Q and also confiscated the seized goods for contravention of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 6 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), by the impugned order, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and held that the goods manufactured by them were not excisable in view of the description of Tariff Item 22 proviso (1)(b) as the processes undertaken by them were neither two nor more than two because they were undertaking only one process of dyeing. By this appeal the Revenue has challenged the order of the Collector (Appeals).2. By his application dated 2-2-1988,...
Kinetic Engineering Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: (1988)(17)ECC234
1. The appellants Imported a "Universal Measuring Machine" Model CORDIMET 700. They cleared the machine on payment of customs duty as assessed. They then made an application for refund of differential of the customs duty paid by them on the ground under Notification No.49/78-Cus. SI.No. 9, the goods were entitled to concessional assessment as "Universal Measuring Instrument to check gauge, tods, jigs and components thereof including internal and external threads". The Asstt.Collector rejected the claim holding that the imported machine was not capable of checking gauges, tools and components thereof including internal and external threads. The Appellate Collector upheld the decision insofar as the applicability of the notification to the imported instrument was concerned. Hence this appeal.2. Shri Deshpandey, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that It can be seen from the catalogue that the imported machine is an instrument (universal measuring machine) and there are va...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. United Paper Products
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-03-1988
Reported in: (1989)(19)ECC302
1. Under classification list No. 90/82 effective from 22.4.1982 the respondents M/s. United Paper Products claimed benefit under Notification No. 144/82 dated 22.4.1982 in respect of "corrugated 5 ply printed cardboard cases made out of duty paid kraft paper" manufactured by them and classifiable under Item 17(4) CET. Under order dated 11.10.1983 the Assistant Collector granted approval without benefit of the said notification. On appeal the said order was set aside by the Collector (Appeals) under his order dated 17.9.1984 under which he extended benefit of exemption under the notification. Thie appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna is against that order.2. While making his submissions on behalf of the appellant Collector, Shri LC. Chakraborty made a request that he should be granted time to take instructions from the Collector for advancing an argument that the subject goods would be printed cartons and for that reason be Ineligible for the concession claimed. His submiss...
Hunsur Plywood Works Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-02-1988
Reported in: (1989)(42)ELT683TriDel
1. The litigation in these appeals arose from the interpretation of the following words: 1. Goods in respect of which the rate of duty of customs specified in the said First Schedule, read with any relevant notification of the Government of India for the time being in force is 60 per cent ad valorem or more. 2. Goods in respect of which the rate of duty of customs specified in the said First Schedule, read with any relevant notification of the Government of India for the time being in force is nil or less than 60 per cent ad valoram. For the purpose of Sl. No. 1 and 2 in the above table, the expression "the rate of duty of customs specified in the said First Schedule, read with any relevant notification of the Government of India for the time being in force, in relation to any article liable to two or more different rates of duty by reason of the Country of origin of that article, means that rate of duty which is the highest of those rates.2. The number of notifications in the cases w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »