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.
Allied Chemicals and Vs. Collr. of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC60
1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of Sodium Lauryl Sulphate in March 1985 which was classified by the Custom House under Heading 29.01/45(1)-CTA read with Item 15-AA of Central Excise Tariff for countervailing duty. They claimed refund after clearance as above on the ground that the goods conforming to Indian Pharmacopiea (I.P) and issued for manufacture of drugs and medicines would be correctly assessable under Heading 29.01/45 (13) at a lower rate of duty. They also claimed that the product satisfies definitiion of the Bulk drug in Central Excise Notification 104/82. In that notification, Explanation I says that bulk drug means any chemical, biological or plant product conforming to pharmacopical standards used for the diagnosis, treatments, mitigation or prevention of diseases in human beings or animals and used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation. They also produced certificate from the Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan to say that Sodium ...
Collector of Customs Vs. New India Industries Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-13-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT83TriDel
1. The respondents imported Document Raw Base Paper and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 55/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 as amended by Notification No. 291/87-Cus., dated 11-8-1987. The benefit of the notification was denied to the repondents by the Assistant Collector of Customs, but the same was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). The Collector's order has been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. We have heard Shri V. Chandrasekaran, learned SDR for the appellant and Shri Jimmy F. Pochkhanawalla, learned advocate for the respondents. Both of them have stated that there is no dispute in the classification of the goods. Both of them have confirmed that the correct tariff sub-heading for the goods is 4802.20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended in 1985. The dispute is regarding the admissibility of the benefit of the notification referred to above.2. At the out set, Shri Pochkhanawalla raised a preliminary objection stating that the authorisation was given after ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Eastern Metal and Ferro Alloys
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC456
1. These are two appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneshwar arising out of two orders of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta dated 24-12-1986 and 23-2-1987, by which he had allowed the appeals of the respondents herein holding that the product manufactured by the respondents cannot be charged to duty as aluminium powder under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 27(8) or under Heading 76.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The respondents herein manufacture Aluminium Powder which, according to the department, fall under the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff Item 27 (8) and under the Heading 76.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The respondents manufacture Ferro Alloys by Alumino Thermic process or Thermit process. In the thermit process, aluminium powder is used for generating energy. The respondents melt aluminium ingots and the molten aluminum is converted into aluminium powder shots and granules by water automisation ...
A. and K. Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)(45)ELT337TriDel
1. In this Miscellaneous application, the applicant/appellant has sought for modification of the order dated 25-5-1984 passed by this Tribunal in this appeal in stay application 406/84-D and grant them waiver of predeposit pending decision in the appeal.2. Before disposing of this application, it is necessary to narrate the background of this case. The appellant's application for stay of the recovery of Rs. 1,86,184.72 and penalty of Rs. 40,000/- passed in order-in-original No. 46/83 dated 21-12-1983 was disposed of by an order of this Tribunal dated 25th May, 1984 in stay application Order No. 117/84-D. By this order, this Tribunal directed waiver of pre-deposit and stay of realisation subject to the appellant depositing Rs. 40,000/- in cash and executing a bond to the satisfaction of the Collector for the remaining amount of duty and penalty, granting 6 weeks time for compliance. It was also ordered that on failure to comply with this order, than the order would stand vacated and ap...
Collector of Customs Vs. Instrumentation Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC281Tri(Delhi)
1. The above captioned 36 appeals emerge from a consolidated order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi disposing of 36 appeals and as such the same are being disposed of by a consolidated order. The respondents have also filed cross objection which was presented in the registry on the 4th day of October, 1989, and the respondents has also filed an application for condonation of delay for the late submission of the cross objection. Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant has appeared on behalf of the respondent has pleaded that the notice of the filing of the appeal was served on the respondents on 31st May 1989 and the respondents had to file the cross objection within 45 days from the receipt of the notice of the filing of the appeals and as such the cross objection should have been filed on or before the 15th day of July 1989 and there is a delay of 16 + 31 + 30 + 4 = 81 days. Shri Gopal Prasad the learned Consultant has stated that after the passing of the ord...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Wander India Limited
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-12-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC315
On merits of the cases, these appeals relate to a common issue, viz., interpretation of Notification No. 116/69-CE dated 3.5.69, as amended and determination whether the product "Iso Benzacyl Forte" falling under Central Excise Tariff Item 14-E, manufactured by M/s. Wander India Limited and by M/s. Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited on behalf of M/s. Wander India Limited, and the products (i) Reclor capsules, (ii) Resteclin capsules, (iii) Resteclin tablets, (iv) Resteclin I.M.Injection and (v) Steclin I.M. Injection manufactured by M/s. Sarabhai Chemicals were eligible for the benefit of the aforesaid notification, Hence, these four appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. There are other legal points which have been raised along with this main issue and the same are also dealt with and disposed of by this order.2. The facts of the case in Appeal No. ED/SB/1447/83-C are that M/s.Aphali Pharmaceutical Limited, Ahmedabad manufactured patent or proprie...
Tejpal Oswal Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-09-1989
Reported in: (1990)(46)ELT471TriDel
1. The above appeal arises against the Order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh in Order-in-Original No.1/Gold/86, dated 30-6-1986. The facts of the case are as follows:- 2. On 3-10-1974 the appellant visited the Lawrence School, Sanawar, Simla Hills. His children were studying in that institution. The appellant left the following packages at the residence of Shri M.V.Gore, Bursar of the school:- (i) One white steel trunk locked with two click locks (red & black) No. 41 each, (ii) One metal container (Pipa) bearing the inscription T.P. Oswal on lid, The appellant did not collect the packages till 8-10-1974. Shri M.V.Gore grew suspicious and on 9-10-1974 he contacted the Head Master of the school. Subsequently the packages were kept in the strong room of the school and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Solan was apprised of the affairs. On 13-11-1974 the appellant turned up and when he asked for the return of the packages he was directed to get necessary ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Carborandum Universal Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT61TriDel
1. Both the sides submitted that the appeal has been filed after the normal period of limitation and therefore at first the question of condonation of delay may be taken up and then the appeal may be decided in the light of decision thereon.2. Heard learned JDR. He submitted that on the basis of the stand already taken by the Custom House on the D.P. 50/82 it was initially felt by the Deptt. that the "Abrasive base paper" though comprised of unbleached sulphate pulp, is not "commonly known kraft paper". In the circumstances, it was decided not to contest the Order (Appeals) No.03/317/1982 communicated to the Deptt. on 25-6-1984. This decision was taken on 15-9-1984. Meanwhile the issue regarding the rate of additional duty applicable to Abrasive backing paper was included in the Agenda for the Tariff Conference of the Collectors of Customs held on 20th to 22nd Sep. '84. In this Conference, it was decided on the basis of the opinion of the Chief Chemist present at the Conference that s...
Om Wati Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ304; 1990(2)Crimes151; 40(1990)DLT69; 1990(18)DRJ162
1. Judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate February 12, 1980, by which he convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under S. 9 of the Opium Act and the subsequent order dated March 4, 1980, sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to payment office, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. 2. In a raid carried out at the room in occupation of the petitioner on September 25, 1976, at about 8.10 a.m. in house No. 4010 situated at Bagichi Ram Chander in presence of the petitioner, in that room a bag was found lying underneath a cot and on opening the bag 9 kgs. 650 gms. of opium was recovered. A sample of 100 gms. was taken and after sealing the sample as well as the remaining opium, the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 2/A. The sample was got sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short 'CFSL') and report Ex. PW 7/D was received from the expert of C...
Lynn A. Curtis Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Oct-06-1989
Reported in: 1990CriLJ74; ILR1989Delhi518
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quotient of the detention order dated 11th of April 1989 passed by respondent No. 2 under section 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 smuggling goods. (2) It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the case because this petition succeeds on a very short point. In para 8 of the petition it has been pleaded that in a complaint filed on the same facts as are enunciated in the grounds of detention under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act pre-charge evidence of three prosecution witnesses has been recorded on various dates prior to the passing of the detention order and the said pre-charge evidence was very material and relevant matters which should have been placed before the detaining authority as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »