Delhi Court November 1990 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 1990 Page 3 of about 110 results (0.021 seconds)Sterlite Cable Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)LC456Tri(Delhi)
1. Both appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together by consent of parties & disposed of by a common order.2. The classification of marble slabs imported by the appellant is to be determined in these appeals.3. C/1768/85-C - The appellants imported a consignment of Raw Unfinished Arabescatc Marble Slabs & claimed clearance under OGL in terms of description in Serial No. 16 of Part Ill-List 8 to Appendix - 10 of the AM - 84 Policy Book. Classification of the goods was claimed under Heading 25.01/32 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with T.I.68 CET & exemption from payment of countervailing duty/additional duty was claimed under Notification 48/79-Cus dated 1-3-1979. The goods were first examined on 12-3-1984. On subsequent examination on 23-4-1984, the Assistant Collector (Bocks) opined that since one side of the marble slabs was polished to glossy finish, they fell for classification under Chapter 68 C.T.A. as articles of marble. As the release of the g...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Customs Vs. Office Photostat Printers
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC244
1. The Appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Order No. S/49-207/83R dated 21-11-1983 on the ground that the 'Automatic Film Processor' is not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 11/77-Cus., dated 15-01-1977. "The imported Multiline 45 Processor (Automatic film/paper processor) is required in the printing industry, where "phototype setting" method is used for printing. Here, the matter to be printed is set photographically on a type setting machine and is exposed on to a film. The film is then processed in the above type of processor and then the matter in the film is exposed on to a photopaper which after exposure is processed by the same processor to make the matter visible before it is further used. The processor is thus used for film and paper alternatively. This is an essential requirement of a film/paper processor for use in phototype setting method. Therefore, processing of paper besides film is not a composite (or comple...
Tag this Judgment!Amber Woollen Mills Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC66
1. Both appeals involve common issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by a common order.2. C/1501/89-D - This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, confiscating a consignment of pre-mutilated synthetic rags on the ground that, the imported garments on examination having been found cut into one, two or three pieces, cannot be considered completely pre-mutilated, and have therefore been imported in contravention of the Import Trade Control Policy provisions, & levying duty at the rate of 80 per cent ad valorem i.e.at the rate applicable on 26-2-1987, which is the date of filing of the bill of entry. The option to redeem goods on payment of a fine and obtain release after further mutilation, was granted to the importers. The appellant imported one container containing 46 Bales of completely pre-mutilated synthetic rags at ICD, New Delhi. Advance copy of bill of entry dated 26-2-1987 was filed at New Delhi, although Sub Manifest cove...
Tag this Judgment!Kochar Trading Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(31)ECC289
1. In all these three appeals, a common question of interpretation of the Customs Notification No. 141 of 1979 Cus., dated 27-6-1979, is involved.2. Shortly put, the facts of the case are that the appellants imported the consignment of wet dates, zahedi excluding seedless. These consignments were assessed to duties of Customs @ 60% adv. (basic) + 40% adv. (auxiliary duty) and the appellants paid the duties of customs as assessed in terms of Customs Notification No. 141 of 1979 and cleared the goods for home consumption. Subsequently, the Less Charge Demand Notices were served on the appellants on the ground that correct duty leviable on these goods was @ 100% adv. (basic) + 40% adv.(auxiliary duty), for the reasons that the subject goods were packed in cartons and not in bags, baskets, gunny cloth or matting bundles. These Less Charge Demands were confirmed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, on the ground that the original assessment was wrong and that Notification No. 113...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Narayan Waste Cotton Spg. Mills
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(34)ECC108
1. This appeal arises out of order-in-ap-peal No. E/1634-1635/PN 317-318/83 disposing of two appeals by a common order.2. The respondents manufacture cotton yarn. Under Notification No.95/61-C.E. yarn of low count spun from cotton waste is exempt from duty. On receipt of information that cotton other than cotton waste is used by the respondents in the manufacture of yarn excise control was imposed on the respondents' units. The test check was continued. From 1980 to the first half of 1981 the test check indicated that the respondents were using cotton waste only. Therefore, they were advised to file price list claiming exemption under Notification No. 95/61 -C.E. Accordingly they filed a price list No. 98 of 1981 on 12th June, 1981. The price list was approved by the department. Thereafter on 27th November, 1981 and 15th January, 1982 the test check results have indicated that the respondents were using virgin cotton in the manufacture of yarn. Therefore, a show cause notice was issue...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Mithu H. Uttam
Court: Delhi
Reported in: [1991]192ITR106(Delhi)
1. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question to this court : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing that the benefit of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, be allowed to the assessed by ignoring the material fact that provisions of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act are applicable only if the property is owned by the assessed and is exclusively used by him for residential purposes throughout the period of twelve months immediately preceding the valuation date ?' 2. In the present case, the executor was also the beneficiary under the will of the late owner. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the benefit under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act was attracted. The Department is laying emphasis on the fact that the respondent was the executor of the will but it seems to ignore the fact that, as held by the Tribunal, he is also the beneficiary under the will and he has ...
Tag this Judgment!i.D.P.L. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(33)ECC84
1. The issue arising for determination in the present appeal is the classification, under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, of a product called "DOW CORNING ANTIFOAM 'A' "COMPOUND" imported by the appellant at Bombay Port. The goods were originally assessed to basic customs duty under Heading No. 38.01/19(1) at 60% ad valorem plus auxiliary duty at 15% ad valorem plus nil additional duty of customs.Later on, the Department issued a notice dated 11-6-1979 alleging a short-levy of Rs. 63,899.85 on the ground that "in the absence of test report, literature etc. the goods appeared to be assessable at 100% + 20% + c.v.d. 40% as against orgl. assessment". At this stage itself, we are constrained to observe that the notice has been issued in a most casual way. It does not set out how and why the initial assessment was wrong and the proposed re-assessment was more appropriate. It does not set out the heading in the Tariff Schedule under which the goods are held to fall. And,...
Tag this Judgment!income-tax Officer Vs. Dharam Pal Singh, Huf
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)36ITD296(Delhi)
1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16-4-1987 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Agra. The only substantive ground raised, reads as under: - The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding both on law and on facts that after the death of Shri D.P. Singh, karta of the HUF the HUF property stands reduced to the extent of his share, which is1/3rd of the total property and directing the ITO to work out the capital gain on this basis on the reduced property of the HUF after the death of karta.2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF. It consisted of Shri Dharam Pal Singh (karta), Shri Yaduvendra Pal Singh (son), Smt.Laxmi Kumari (wife) and Usha Kumari (unmarried daughter). The karta died on2-9-1982, i.e. after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.3. The assessee-HUF entered into an agreement to sell the property owned by it and known as "Castle Grant" for a sale consideration of Rs. 65,00,000 on 2-5-1982. An agree...
Tag this Judgment!Radhika Vitamalt Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(54)ELT326TriDel
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-3-19861 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals)J"Bmkay. The facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of zinc dross, zinc ash and zinc residue between March 1980 to June 1980 and after clearance thereof, filed a refund claim on the ground that Additional duty of Customs (CVD) has been recovered in excess and that they were entitled to Notification 168/69 for the goods which had been classified for CVD purposes under Item 26B(1) of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Assistant Collector (Refund Deptt.), Bombay Custom House rejected these refund claims saying that the exemption under Notification 168/69 is available only on production of evidence to the effect that the goods imported have been used for manufacture of zinc unwrought within the factory of production and that the appellants had not produced any such evidence. The appeal was filed against the Asstt. Collector's order and at the appeal stage, they raised th...
Tag this Judgment!Modern Food Industries (India) Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in: (1991)(32)ECC62
1. The Appeal is for extending the benefit of Notification No.125/86-Cus., dated 17-02-1986 for the Band Slicer imported as a set with the High Speed packing machines.2. The appellants are engaged in the production and marketing of "Modern Bread". They had imported 3 Sets of machinery consisting of Slicer, Bagger and Tyerbag along with spares and claimed assessment at the concessional rate under Notification No. 125/86 dated 17-02-1986 and as amended.3. The Assistant Collector had given them the benefit of the Notification No. 125/86-Cus., dated 17-02-1986 to the Bread Bagger, and rejected the claim for the two other machines on the ground that they are capable of functioning independently and do not fulfil the requirements indicated in Sl. No. 23 of the Notification supra.4. On appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals), he gave the benefit to the Twist Tyer meant to close the bags and not to the slicer, as the slicer cuts the bread into different slices and was capable of bein...
Tag this Judgment!