Delhi Court December 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. Sanchoti Synthetics (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1992)LC247Tri(Delhi)
1. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur has filed the above captioned 41 appeals being aggrieved from a common order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. Since the issue involved is similar in the above captioned appeals, the same are disposed of by this common order.2. The facts of all the appeals are similar. Only the facts in the case of M/s. Sanchoti Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. E/1746/89-B are given below :- 3. The respondents had filed a classification list with effect from 1st August, 1983 indicating therein the description of the goods against Serial No. 1 as Iron & Steel product pieces of stainless steel roughly shaped by rolling and steel not elsewhere specified (commonly known as S.S. Patti) cold rolled / hot rolled)". The rate of Central Excise duty leviable was shown at Rs. 330/- per MT and in column No. 9 of the classification list Notification No. 209/83-C.E. dated 1st August, 1983 was mentioned. The Assistant Collector issued a show ...
Duke and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT577TriDel
1. The dispute relates to the ineluctability of "franchise fees" in the assessable value of the 'concentrates'.2. The appellants manufacture 'concentrates' for making soft drinks. In the price lists they declared a price of Rs. 180/- per unit of 'concentrate' for making 100 cases of 24 bottles each of the soft drinks. The buyers of the appellants who purchase the concentrate entered into a separate agreements under which they are allowed to use the trade mark for which the appellants charged Rs. 150/- for 100 cases of 24 bottles each of the soft drinks. The price lists were filed accordingly. A show cause notice dated 30th April, 1987 was issued proposing to include the 'Franchise fee' towards the use of trade mark and good-will in the assessable value of the 'concentrate'. On receipt of the reply the Asstt. Collector added the 'Franchise fee' to the price of the 'Concentrate' and arrived at the assessable value of the 'Concentrate' at Rs. 300/- per unit of 'Concentrate' effective fro...
Collector of C.E. Vs. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC210
2. At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative raised a preliminary objection stating that the appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of Collector(A). The respondents have neither filed an appeal on their own nor even filed a Cross objection.Under the circumstances, they are not an aggrieved person and in terms of Section 35-F, no stay application can be moved from their side. (The Department itself has not filed any stay application). In the circumstances, it was their contention that the stay application filed by the respondents was not maintainable.3. The learned Counsel stated that it is correct that they have neither filed an appeal nor a Cross objection in the matter. However, it was their contention that they were still entitled to move the stay application in terms of Section 35-F and were covered by the proviso thereof. It was their submission that by the act of filing of the appeal by the Department, the whole issue gets reopened and therefore, ...
Paxma Axle and Springs P. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. The appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 70/86 (C No. V(68) 15/44/CE/86/120, dated 14th January 1987 of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. The appellants are manufacturing elastic rail clips. The manufacturing process is, the duty paid rods are cut into pieces of required length and subjected to bending/forming process with the aid of Horizontal Power Press which gives U-shape to the steel rod pieces.The U-shaped Steel rod pieces are thereafter again put to Horizontal Power Press to give them another U-bend at different angles. The said pieces are then put into a vertical power press, which gives them the desired bending. In order to harden them and give them greater elasticity the said shaped steel rod pieces are subject to heat treatment in an electric furnace at a pre-determined temperature. These are tested and supplied to the railway department for use as elastic rail clips. The appellants claim the entire process as a forging process, falling under Item 25(11) of ...
United Glass Bottles Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)(26)ECC222
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. B. Cus. 354/87, dated 24-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the consignment of designs and drawings imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry 7160/87, dated 13-4-1987 was liable to be charged to auxiliary duty of customs at 40% ad valorem in terms of Customs Notification No. 111/87, dated 1-3-1987, as held by the lower authorities or was exempt from the said duty in terms of Customs Notification 112/87, dated 1-3-1987.3. There is no dispute as regards the classification under Heading 4906.00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purpose of levy of basic duty of customs nor as regards the levy of additional duty of customs.4. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned counsel, for the appellants and Shri V. Chandrasekaran, SDR, for the respondent-Collector.5. Auxiliary duty of customs was leviable, under Section 95 of the Finance B...
City Drinks Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-29-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC217Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants, M/s. City Drinks Ltd., Bangalore have challenged the correctness of the Order-in-Original C. No. V/17/15/103/88 C. 1 dated 28-3-1989 and Order No. 18/89 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore-I confirming the demand made in the show cause notice. By this order, the Collector has demanded a sum of Rs. 4,818.12 on 9850 litres of sugar syrup said to have been clandestinely consumed captively during the period from 1-10-1987 to 31-10-1987 under Rule 9(2) of CE Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act). He has, further demanded a sum of Rs. 85,212.60 on 167040 litres of sugar syrup valued at Rs. 7,10,105.00 manufactured and said to have been clandestinely consumed during the period from 1-11-1987 to 30-4-1988 under Rule 9(2) of the C.E. Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the C.E. Rules 1944. The facts of the case are that on 10...
National Organic Chemicals Inds. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1989
Reported in: (1994)(70)ELT722TriDel
1. The appellants are the manufacturers of various petrochemicals.Among other things, they manufacture Ethyl Hexanol, Normal Butanol and Iso Butanol. All the three products attracted Central Excise Duty under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68. The product 'Cobalt Octate' was being used by the appellants as an input. Vide Notification No. 178/77-C.E., dated 18-6-1977, the appellants were entitled to claim set off in respect of C.E. duty paid on the said input. On 28-9-1977, the said Notification was amended and a condition was inserted that the manufacturer would furnish to the proper officer a statement showing the quantity of input used in the manufacture of every unit of the finished product. In order to avail of the benefit of the said Notification, the appellants filed a classification list and also a statement showing the monthwise quantity of 'Cobalt Octate' consumed during the period June to September, 1977 and the quantity of three products obtained therefrom. These statements were...
Chander Kumar Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC225Tri(Delhi)
1. This is an appeal under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act against the order-in-appeal No.403-DLH/85 dated 1.5.85 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) New Delhi confirming the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, New Delhi in his order-in-original No. 59/80 dated 11.2.1981 in which the appellant was imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 112 of the Act as a result of confiscation of 430 wrist watches and scooter. A redemption fine of Rs. 2500/- has been imposed on the seizure of the scooter.2. The facts of the case as described in the order-in-original are that on 20.8.79, the officers of the Customs (Preventive) Branch of the Central Excise Collectorate, Delhi acting on an information, searched the residential premises of Shri Sohanlal Narula, Watch dealer, situated at B-112, Amar Colony, Delhi. Immediately before the commencement of the search of the aforesaid premises, the appellant is alleged to have entered this prem...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Pharmasia (P) Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)(25)ECC461
1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the product namely "mediker" manufactured by the respondents is used as a shampoo or even as a medicated soap or whether it is used as treatment for lice. Answer to all these will decide on the classification of the product. Both sides produced before us extensive literature to which we will be referring later on. We also witnessed a film shown to us by the respondents.2. Very briefly the background of the matter is that the Assistant Collector of Central Excise passed an order classifying Mediker under sub-heading 3005.90 considering it as a preparation for use on the hair. The respondents filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) who ordered the classification under 3003.10. The Revenue thereafter filed this appeal before us.3. Shri Sunder Rajan, the learned DR after referring entries in the tariff submitted that the product Mediker is a preparation for use on the hair. He drew our attention to the label ap...
Vasant Chitra Mandir Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-28-1989
Reported in: (1990)34ITD58(Delhi)
1. These 4 appeals, filed by the assessee arise out of the consolidated order dated 24-6-1986 of the learned Appellate Asstt. Commissioner, Ghaziabad for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85.2. The assessee M/s. Vasant Chitra Mandir is a registered firm. It had raised a loan from its sister concern namely M/s. Khacherumal Vishnu Swarup, Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad for the construction of a cinema hall and had agreed to pay interest thereon. However, the Income-tax Officer found that the assesseehad not deducted tax on the amount of interest credited on various dates in terms of Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the details thereof being as follows:- Year due on the said loan1981-82 Rs. 19,67,333 Rs. 2,48,320 What the assessee did for all these assessment years in question was that instead of crediting the amounts of interest mentioned in column No. 3 above to the account of the creditor M/s. Khacherumal Vishnu Swarup, credited the same to "Interest payable account" and showed thes...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »