Delhi Court September 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.
Collr. Of C.Ex. Vs. Little'S Oriental Balm And
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC39Tri(Delhi)
1. Facts of the case have been stated in the appeal memorandum filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the relevant portions of which are reproduced below :- "M/s. Little's Oriental Balm and Pharmaceuitcals Limited, Madras manufactured 'Little's Oriental Balm' a pain balm as patent and proprietary medicine falling under T.I.14E of the Central Excise Tariff till the end of financial year 1979-80. Subsequently in the year 1980-1981 the company classified the pain balm under T.I. 68 as an Ayurvedic Medicine. The ingredients of the balm manufactured prior to 1980-81 and after 1980-81 are as follows :- On examining the classification of the little oriental balm, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division observed that the main ingredients of the balm were mentioned in the Unani Authority and that the appearance of Eucalyptus Oil cannot affect the indigeneous nature of the balm. The Assistant Collector held that the balm is not an allopathic preparation and ther...
Purolator India Limited Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: (1989)(24)ECC258
1. E/1619/89-C. - By the impugned order dated 31-1-1989, the Additional Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, held that impregnated filter paper pleated packs manufactured by M/s. Purolator India Ltd. (the appellants) were classifiable under sub-heading No. 4818.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (the 'Schedule', for short) and that the appellants were liable to pay Rs. 3,13,790.92 being the duty chargeable on the goods cleared during the period from 1-1-1987 to 31-5-1987. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Central Excise Rule 173Q on the appellants. It is this order that is challenged in these proceedings.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of the aforesaid goods without taking out a Central Excise licence and observing the procedures laid down in the Central Excise law including payment of duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 1...
Prakash Pipes and Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC526Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellants manufactured rigid P.V.C. pipes falling under Item No. 15A(2) of Central Excise Tariff prior to 28-2-1982. By virtue of Notification No. 68/71-C.E., dated 19-5-1971 those goods were exempted from the whole of Central Excise duty. By the Finance Bill, introduced on 28-2-1982, those goods were shifted from Tariff Item 15A(2) to Tariff Item 68 and the effective rate of duty was fixed at 8% ad valorem by notification No. 52/82-C.E., dated 28-2-1982. On 22-4-1982, notification No. 189/82-C.E., dated 22-4-1982 was issued by the Govt.fully exempting the goods from payment of the Central Excise duty. On 22-6-1982 the appellants filed a refund claim for Rs. 5,03,000/- claiming refund of duty paid during the period from 28-2-1982 to 21-4-1982. The ground of the refund claim, as stated in the order-in-appeal, is that those goods were manufactured prior to 28-2-1982 when those were fully exempted from duty under Notification No. 68/71-C.E., and hence no duty was payable although...
Vaidyaratnam P.S. Varier'g Arya Vaidyasal Kottakal Vs. K.C. Vijai Kuma ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: 42(1990)DLT35; 1990(19)DRJ113
P.N. Nag, J. (1) This is a suit for recovery of possession of the premises . described in schedule attached to the plaint and also for payment of damages amounting to Rs. 1,96,000.00 together with future damages for use and occupation of the premises @ Rs. 100.00 per day from the data of suit till the plaintiff gets actual possession of the premises. (2) The suit is grounded on the allegations that the plaintiff is the Managing Trustee of Arya Vaidyasala, Kottakkal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Vaidyasala'), a charitable trust, and is competent to file the suit. The defendant is residing on the second floor of building. E-76. South Extension Part I, New Delhi belonging to Vaidyasala in which the plaintiff is also running its Medical Centre at New Delhi. In fact this, Medical Centre of the plaintiff at New Delhi was started in February, 1982 and with a view to establishing necessary contracts with the Government Departments, Foreign Embassies, visiting dignitaries of foreign countrie...
Arya Vaidya Sala Vs. K.C. Vijai Kumar
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-1989
Reported in: AIR1990Delhi158; 40(1990)DLT325; 1990(18)DRJ104; 1989RLR469
P.N. Nag, J.(1) The applicants are trustees of the plaintiff-trust. Arya Vaidya Sala, and through this application under Order 1 Rule 1 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seek: to imp leaded them selves as plaintiffs in the present on the ground that they are seven trustees in the plaintiff-trust and the suit has been filed by the trust through the Managing Trustee, namely, Shri P.K.Varier. In fact the suit has been filed by the Managing Trustee on-the basis of the authorisation by the trustees of the trust but in order to avoid any technical objection on the maintainability of: the suit the applicants seek the addition of their names along with the Managing Trustee as the plaintiffs in the present suit. Such an additton, according to the applicants, as plaintiffs will not in any way prejudice the case of the defendant. The defendant has opposed this application on the ground that the application is highly belated, more particularly when the suit was finally ar...
Smt. Sangey Cholden Vs. Collector of Customs and C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-19-1989
Reported in: (1990)LC555Tri(Delhi)
1. This Appeal is directed against the impugned Order No.Col./Cus./Addl. Collr./14/88, dated 31-5-1988 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Shillong ordering, inter alia, absolute confiscation of Toyota Car No. BCP-0112 worth Rs. 60,000/-, for which the appellant has claimed ownership, and in the Appeal Memo, as well as during the course of hearing, has prayed for its release.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the above-mentioned Toyota Corona Delux car (made in Japan) was seized at Kokrajhar, Assam by the Customs Preventive staff on 23-11-1986 from the possession of Shri M.G. Agarwala of Assam Industries, Kokrajhar on the reasonable belief that the same has been procured by him in contravention of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Import-Export Control Act, 1947 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. On interrogation about the possession of the car M.G. Agarwala stated in writing on 23-11-1986 that the car, which was not in wor...
Shrishma Fine Chem. and Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC170
1. The issue for consideration in these 36 appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No.77/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986.2. The appeals arise against the order-in-appeal dated 30-5-1988 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras rejecting the appellants 36 refund claims amounting to Rs. 22,26,780/-. (a) The appellants imported Phenol USP Grade from West Germany and the consignment was classified under sub-heading 2907.11 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purposes of levy of Customs duty. For the purposes of levy of countervailing duty the goods were classified under sub-heading 2907.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Sub-heading 2907.11 of the Customs Tariff Act reads as "Phenol (hydroxybenzene) and its salts". Sub-heading No. 2907.10 of the Central Excise Tariff refers to "Phenols and its salts". By virtue of Notification No. 136/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 (as amended), the effective rate of dut...
Skylab Paints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)(31)LC220Tri(Delhi)
1. By the impugned order, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise disposed of 2 orders-in-original No, V(14) 17-9/79/CL/MP. I dated 4.11.1981 and No. V(14) 3-128/MP/81/16258 dated 18.11.1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bulsar. By the Order-in-Original dated 4.11.1981 the Assistant Collector approved two classification lists effective from .1.3.1980 to 18.6.1980 and from 9.6.1980 disallowing the benefit of exemption notifications No.71/78-CE dated 1.3.1978 and 80/80-CE dated 19.6.1980 during the financial year 1980-8l. By the Order-in-Original dated 18.11.1982 the Assistant Collector of Central Excise confirmed the demand for duty and the Collector (Appeals) has remanded this part of the proceedings to Assistant Collector of Central Excise for de novo decision in the light of the findings of the Collector (Appeals). The appellants filed the second appeal No. E/286/86-C with E/COD/181/86-C as per directions of the Registry as the Order-in-Appeal disposed of tw...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Prabhat Packaging Corp.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT102TriDel
1. In these appeals, common question of fact and law arises and hence they are disposed of by a common order. The appellants are the Revenue.They have challenged the correctness of the order-in-appeal dated 6-5-83 passed by the learned Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay.2. The respondents were served with four show cause notices-cum-demand by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range II and III, Vapi for recovery of duty mentioned therein totalling to an amount of Rs. 15,91,956.31 P. for four periods viz. 4-9-79 to 22-1-80; 22-1-80 to 31-5-80; 1-6-80 to 30-11-80 and 1-12-80 to 31-5-81. The allegation made in the show cause notices-cum-demand are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of 'kum kum'. Further, it is alleged that the respondents had stopped the payment of Central Excise duty on the goods manufactured by them under Tariff Item 68 thus contravening Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further it was alleged that they had followed the procedur...
Jiwa Singh Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-18-1989
Reported in: 39(1989)DLT321; 1991(31)ECC392; 1990LC605(Delhi); 1990(45)ELT229(Del)
R.N. Pyne, C.J.(1) The petitioner came to India on September 4, 1988 after two years' of stay abroad. He brought with him household personal effects which included one C.T.R. 2092 Sony 20' and a National V.C.R. G-130. The petitioner claimed benefit of Transfer of Residence Rules in respect of all the above items including C.T.V. and V.C.R. on the ground he had been personally using the same for more than one year. The petitioner also filed a purchase vouch her dated 23rd June, 1987 in respect of T.V. and V.C.R. The Assistant Collector of (Air Customs) inspected ail the said items. He granted concession under Transfer of Residence Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'T.R. Rules') in respect of all items including C.T.V. set but rejected the petitioner's claim in respect of V.C.R. on the ground that it was new and less than one year old. (2) The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Collector rejecting T.R. claim in respect of V...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »