Delhi Court October 1989 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. G. Claridge and Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC101
1. As these appeals involve inter alia a common issue regarding classification of the products manufactured by the appellants, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In appeals No. E/1883/85-C and E/2031/85-C, the facts are that the respondents were manufacturing "(i) egg filler flats, (ii) egg cartons, (iii) tube light packing trays, (iv) duck egg trays and (v) apple trays". They filed a classification list for the above goods effective from 1-4-1981 classifying the products under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The classification list was approved by the Range Superintendent on 20-5-1981 and the respondents paid duty at the appropriate prevailing rate under Item 68. After the budgetary changes from 28-2-1982/1-3-1982, the respondents filed a revised classification list effective from 1-3-1982 for the aforesaid five products claiming classification under Tariff Item 17(4) as "articles of paper packing containers" and claiming full exemp...
Satnam Singh Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ71
ORDER1. This petition has been brought under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the detention order dated March 27, 1989, passed by a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under S. 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') with a view to preventing the petitioner from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in keeping smuggled goods and the declaration dated April 10, 1989, issued under S. 9(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on a secret information the officers of the Directorate of the Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, intercepted a truck No. PAT-410 on March 5, 1989, at Kundli along with the petitioner and Sukhwinder Singh and Dilbagh Singh, driver and cleaner of the truck were also found present in the truck and were appr...
Yogesh Gurdasani Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1989RLR543
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) After the payment of the entire amount, as demanded by the respondent the petitioner had been writing a number of letters to the respondent requiring it to hand over the possession of the said plot of land. On one pretext or the other the possession was not handed over. The petitioner was at one time asked to show proof of the deposit of Rs. 8737.50 which was shown and on another occasion, he was asked to furnish a Power of Attorney. This was also done, but still the possession of the plot was not handed over. (2) It was only vide a letter dated 4.3.86 that the petitioner was informed that he would be handed over possession of a plot measuring 325.16 sq. metres. This was followed by two other letters dated '.10.87 and 6.11.87 to similar effect. The Attorney of the petitioner objected to the area of the plot which was sought to be allotted, and the petitioner also represented against this vide his letter dated 22.11.88. (3) It is thereupon that the present writ petiti...
Dilbagh Singh @ Billa Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-17-1989
Reported in: 1989CriLJ2527; 39(1989)DLT27; ILR1989Delhi512
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) By this judgment I would dispose of these two criminal writ petitions brought by the co-detenus. (2) An order of detention dated March 27, 1989, has been passed by a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (for short 'COFEPOSA Act') defaming Dilbagh Singh with a view to preventing him from engaging in transporting and concealing smuggled goods. A declaration dated April 10, 1989, under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act has been also issued against him. Similar detention, order dated March 27, 1989, has been passed against Sukhwinder Singh under the same provision and for the same object and declaration dated April 10, 1989, also has been issued against him under Section 3(1) of the Cofeposa Act. (3) The facts as evident from the grounds of detention served on the two detenus, in brief, are that on the basis of some prior secret information the officers of Dir...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bakelite Hylam Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC145
The respondents M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., manufacture decorative and industrial laminated sheets classified under T.I. 15A (2) of the 1st schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. In the manufacture of the decorative and industrial laminated sheets, Phenol formaldehyde chemical is used for impregnating the kraft paper/cotton fabric, classified under T.I. 17(1)/19 (iii) of the schedule respectively which further go into the laminated sheets. Phenol formaldehyde falling under T.I. 15(A) is made by the assessee in its own factory by mixing Phenol and formaldehyde chemicals and sell it in the market. In the course of manufacture of formaldehyde three grades of Phenol formaldehyde resin come into existence: Phenol formaldehyde resin HV 20086; HV 7716; & HR 7523. According to respondents in appeal No E/214/86-C HV 20086 and HV 7716 are highly reactive and unstable and therefore, not marketable whereas HR 7523 resin is less reactive and stable. Therefore, the respondents are ...
Akola Oil Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC130Tri(Delhi)
1. When these matters have come up for hearing on 4-10-1989 none has appeared on behalf of the appellants. They have, however, vide their telegram dated 20-9-1989 prayed for decision on merits in their absence. While making this prayer they have stated that the admissibility of set-off under Notification No. 201/79-C.E., dated 4-6-1979 prior to its amendment on 28-2-1982 by Notification No.105/82-C.E. was already decided by this Tribunal in its decisions reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 295, 1988 (35) E.L.T. 479 and 1989 (39) E.L.T. 327. We have, therefore, heard Shri Chandrasekaran, learned DR for the respondent.2. By the impugned orders the Collector (Appeals) disposed of two orders-in-original. According to the practice prevailing in this Tribunal, the appellants have filed a supplementary appeal which is now before us for disposal. Since the first appeal was filed in time and there was delay in filing the supplementary appeal, we condone the delay in filing this supplementary appeal a...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Lathia Industrial Supplies
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-16-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT92TriDel
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the activity of the respondents namely receiving M.S. Rolls from their clients, rubber coating and returning them to the clients would amount to job work. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the Assistant Collector's Order and held that the activity amounts to manufacture.Hence this appeal.2. We heard Shri Chakraborti, the Ld. JDR who submitted that the respondents in coating the M.S. Rolls with rubber manufacture a different commodity. He submitted that the activity amounts to manufacture and is not merely job work.3. The Ld. Consultant for the respondents submitted that a perusal of the Notification No. 119/75 shows that the case is fully covered by the explanation to the notification which runs as follows :- 'Explanation - For the purpose of this notification, the expression 'Job work' shall mean such item of work where an article intended to undergo manufacturing process is supplied to a job worker and that arti...
Skantrons (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: (1991)LC398Tri(Delhi)
The appellant imported certain items for its industrial activities and sought clearance against 3 bills of entry as follows: Some of the goods fall under O.G.L. and some other items required specific import licence.1.2 On a routine check by the Customs authorities, from the licence issuing authority, namely CCI & E's office it was revealed that the endorsement found on the licence No. P/L/3179662/XX/105/2/87-dated 10-11-1987 was forged; it was, therefore, suggested by the DCCI & E that the goods against this licence should not be cleared.1.3 It was also alleged by the department that the value declared by the appellant for various goods appeared to be on the lower side.1.4 The appellant in reply to the show cause notice dated 10-5-1988 pleaded that it had bona fidely purchased the said licence available in the market for which no restriction is there. Hence, it could not be alleged on any reasonable basis that the appellant had connived in presenting this licence for clearance...
Collector of Customs Vs. Madras Fertilizers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC8
1. The Collector of Customs, Madras has filed this appeal against the order dated 17-5-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds) Madras Customs House dated 5-12-1981 by which the Assistant Collector had rejected a refund claim filed by the respondents herein.The respondents had imported a consignment of ring carbon metal backed which was assessed to duty by the Customs House under Heading 84.64 of Customs Tariff Act as Gaskets. After clearance of the goods on payment of duty, the respondents claimed refund on the ground that the goods were correctly assessable to duty as component parts specially designed for use in ammonia compressor under Heading 84 ll(3)-CTA. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector as unsubstantiated by evidence to show such special application to compressors. On an appeal against this order, the Collector (Appeals) admitted the appeal holding that the sealing rings are...
Kalaria Chemical Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT472TriDel
1. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants cleared the following goods in 1981-82 for the value indicated against each:- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Srl. Tariff Item No. Name of the Value of clearances during 1981-82 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. 14-D Solubilised Rs. 29,90,959.00 Vats 3. 15-A(1) Synthetic Rs. 4,76,740.00 Resins 5. 1400(4) Pigment Pastes Rs. 5,662.50________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ On 12-4-1982, the appellants filed a classification list in respect of their products claiming exemption of duty in respect of synthetic resins and pigment pastes for the year 1982-83 under Notification No.80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980. Solubilised Vats falling under Tariff Item 14-D was exempted from Central Excise duty under Not...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »