Delhi Court November 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.
Maxo Laboratories (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1995)(80)ELT720TriDel
1. Being dissatisfied with the confiscation of the imported goods, namely "Sufeed Sarah (Poppy seeds)" with an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act and also imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,0007- under Section 112 of the said Act, the appellants have preferred their present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants said to be the manufacturers of Ayurvedic and Unani medicines imported from Karachi poppy seeds valued at Rs. 1,54,000/- under supplier's invoice dated 28-8-1986 and claimed clearance of the goods under OGL Appendix 6 List 8 Serial No. 1 of the Import Policy for AM 1985-88. Since the import of the subject goods was covered under entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of AM 1985-88 policy and for the clearance of which a specific Import Licence/CCP was required the appellants were asked to produce the valid Import Licence/CCP to cover the import of the subject goods. However, the appellants did not pro...
Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC309Tri(Delhi)
1. Being aggrieved with the confiscation of 39 packages of motor vehicle parts by enforcing the bond and appropriating an amount of Rs. 35,000/- in lieu of confiscation and also... the appellants have filed the present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : It was the case of the Department that on 3-7-1985, the preventive officers concerned intercepted a motor tempo loaded with 26 wooden cases containing motor-vehicle parts at UP-Delhi border near Maharajpur check-post and on demand, Mohd. Kaleem Khan, Driver of the said vehicle produced two gate pass both dated 30-6-1985 and proforma invoices all dated 30-6-1985 and GR dated 30-6-1985 of M/s. Chawla Transporters, Ghaziabad and after interrogating the said driver and examining the record of the said transporter and also examining the record of the appellants' factory, whereby it was revealed that the said goods found loaded in the aforesaid tempo on 3-7-1985 had actually left the factory gate on 30-6-1985, the officer concerned seized the said...
Malik Brothers Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(27)LC193Tri(Delhi)
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity and correctness of the order-in-original No. 16/87 dated 31.3.1987 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi and has sought for setting aside the imposition of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act.2. The facts of the case as narrated in the order-in-original are that on the basis of specific information, officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Nepal Division) New Delhi searched the business premises of the appellants in the presence of the partners of the firm.As a result, a huge stock of Zip fasteners of foreign origin was recovered. On questioning one partner Shri Som Nath Malik produced the documents of importation and payment of duty. But however, the officers found wide variation between the balance of zip fasteners as shown in the stock register and the balance of a stock as found on physical verificati...
Sheel thermoplastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC21
1. In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the correctness of the order-in-appeal No. HN-871/B-II/391/86 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay who has rejected their appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division IX Bombay II.2. The facts of the case as stated in the order-in-appeal are that the appellants hold licence for manufacturing the goods falling under Tariff Item 19 and 22. They intended to manufacture coated knitted material and applied for licence under Tariff Item 68. They also filed classification list seeking the classification of the said product under Tariff Item 68. The question of classification of Staple knitted material with PVC was considered by the Asstt. Collector and by his order-in-original held that the product in question was classifiable under Tariff Item 19(III) and 22(111) as the base is cotton, artificial silk or any other fabric. Both the lower authorities rejected the contentions of the...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Hindustan Fertiliser
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT187TriDel
1. In this case the respondents received sulphuric acid and availed of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 81/75C.E., dated 22-3-1975 claiming that the sulphuric acid would be used in the manufacture of fertiliser. Under this notification, sulphuric acid vised in the manufacture of fertiliser was exempted from the central excise duty. The sulphuric acid received by the respondents was used by them for demineralisation of water and the said demineralised water was used for production of steam required for the manufacture of urea fertiliser. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise disallowed the benefit of aforesaid notification on the ground that the sulphuric acid was not directly used in the manufacture of fertiliser. On appeal filed before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who, following the Order-in-Appeal No. 297 of 1982, dated 20-9-1982 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and allowed the appeal...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prem Jewellers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT624TriDel
1. In the subject reference application following purported questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal No. A/264/89-NRB, dated 13-7-1989 have been raised by the applicant-Collector of Central Excise, Delhi :- (1) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the powers under Section 82(1) and 82(3) of the Gold Control Administrator get extinguished if the affected party filed an appeal before such decision under Section 82(1) and 82(3) of the Gold Control Act and the appeal is listed for hearing before such decision is taken. (2) Whether the appeal filed by the Collector under Section 82(4) as per the orders of the Gold Control Administrator under Section 82(1) and 82(3) is non-maintainable even though the same is filed within the stipulated period as per the Gold Control Act. (3) Whether filing of cross-objection under Section 81(5) is obligatory as per the Gold Control Act. (4) Whether the Collector had the powers to file cross-objection against the orders of ...
Bst Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1990)32ITD586(Delhi)
1. These cross appeals arise out of the consolidated order dated 9.1.1987 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), New Delhi for the assessment years 1973-74, 1974-7S and 1975-76.2. The assessee is a limited company. The common question involved in these appeals relates to the allowability of interest under Section 244(1 A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of payments made before and after 31.3.1975 which were adjusted in assessments framed after 31.3.1975. The facts are not in dispute and can be conveniently expressed as follows:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment First appeal TDS Advance tax Self- Amount---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assessment Vide CIT(A)'s Rs. 60,654framed on order dated (1) Rs. 9,65,000 Rs. 19,84,92524....
State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-30-1989
Reported in: (1991)36ITD497(Delhi)
1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated(iii)-3-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The assessee company is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking. The assessment for the asst. year 1983-84 was framed by the IAC (Asstt.) on 27-1-1986. On an examination of the assessment records of the assessee for the asst. year 1983-84 it was found by the CIT that the asst. order was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. A show-cause notice Under Section 263 was accordingly issued to the assessee wherein it was, inter alia, pointed out that deduction Under Section 80HHC has been wrongly allowed to the assessee on two counts namely : (i) deduction has been allowed on primary agricultural commodities namely, rice, coriander, garlic and chillies; (ii) deduction has been allowed on items which were not exported during the previous year relevant to the asst. year 1982-83 an...
Narayan Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC453Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants manufactured silicone emulsion out of duty-paid silicone oil. Prior to 28.2.1982 the same was classified under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, but was fully exempted from duty under Notification No. 46/81-CE dated 1.3.1981. They had a stock of such emulsion on 28.2.1982, which was cleared after 28.12.1982. By virtue of Explanation II below Tariff Item 15A intro-duced w.e.f. 28.2.1982, silicone manufactured by chemical synthesis was classifiable under Tariff Item 15A(1). According to Explanation III emulsion form was also assessable under this Tariff Item. A question arose whether this stock of emulsion should pay duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) as it was cleared after 28.2.1982, or no duty was payable as the same enjoyed exemption from duty when it was manufactured. In the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held as follows: Where liability to duty under Section 3 is established as housing existed at the ti...
Hico Products Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC280
1. In the Misc. Application the appellants/applicants have prayed for early hearing of their appeal on the ground that the case is covered by previous decisions of this Tribunal. After hearing both sides, we have allowed the Misc. Application. With the consent of both the parties, we have thereafter taken up the appeal for hearing on merits, alongwith the appeal No. E/1160/88-C.2. The issue in dispute in both the appeals is the classification of silicone oil and aqueous emulsion of silicone. Brief facts of the cases covered by these two appeals are as follows:- (i) Appeal No. E/1373/88-C. This appeal relates to order-in-original No. V(15AA)17-82/CLVC/84/ 4270 dated 27.9.85 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division III: Kalyan and Order-in-appeal No. AMP 597/B III - 288/87 [File No. V (15AA)263/R/86/2370] dated 15.2.88. This order-in-original of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Kalyan Division-Ill disposed of two show cause notices, viz., No. V(15AA)17-82/...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »