Delhi Court February 1990 Judgments

Vishal Surgical Equipment Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1991)(55)ELT393TriDel

1. In the above captioned appeals the issue involved is whether 'Foley Balloon Catheters' are similar to 'Suction Catheters' in terms of A.M.1985-88 Policy, appendix 6, list 2 item No. 31 and whether the goods imported are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22nd September, 1981 under serial No. 32 of Heading B of the schedule annexed to the said notification. Since the issue involved in the above captioned 10 appeals is common, the same are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of appeal No. C/1927/88-B2 are given below :- 2. M/s. Kamal Traders, Bombay had imported 100 cartons of "Kosan Angel" brand "Foley Balloon Catheters" per s.s. State of Nagaland of 2112.87, bill of entry No. 3344/8-1-1988, C.I.F. value Rs. 7,36,952.00. A show cause notice dated 17th February, 1988 was issued to the importers. In the show cause notice the importer was called upon to explain how Foley Balloon Catheters intended for removal of urine b...

Polymer Papers Limited Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(28)LC455Tri(Delhi)

1. For reasons that will be apparent, we took up the appeal also along with the stay application, after waiving the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. This course of action had the consent of both the sides.2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants manufacture PVA based compound and clear it from their factory under three trade names. This was mentioned in the classification list filed by them to be effective from 24.9.1984, copy of which has been placed before us with the appeal. In this classification list they mentioned that there was no manufacture but "only mixing of duty-paid polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. with water and fillers." 3. Though this classification list was approved, the Department in December, 1985, initiated proceedings to demand duty on the compound for the period April, 1984 to May, 1985.4. Shri Vohra, the learned Consultant for the appellants has two main grounds to urge before us. One is that the show cause notice itself is not maintainable inasmu...

Transocean Shipping Agency (P) Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC401Tri(Delhi)

1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. We have heard Shri V. Laxmikumaran, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri C.V. Durghiya, learned Departmental Representative for the respondent.2. The impugned order bearing No. S/49-1217/81-R dated 14-7-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay was received by the appellants on 26-7-1982. The appeal filed by the appellants was received in the Registry of this Tribunal on 2-3-1983. Last date for filing the appeal before the Tribunal was 25-1-1983 i.e. within 6 months from the date of communication of the order. Hence there is a delay of 35 days in filing this appeal. It is explained that this appeal was sent by the appellants through their Authorised Representative under the signature of Shri S. Vishwanathan of M/s.Sthanamoorthy & Company, Chartered Accountants, Bombay alongwith Bank draft for Rs. 200/- dated 25-1-1983, despatched vide their covering letter No. 27/1195/82-83 dated 25-1-...

Wasan and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)(49)ELT444TriDel

1. Being dissatisfied with the order of confiscation of the seized goods namely pairs of ladies boot uppers fitted with Polyurethane foam with an option to redeem the same on payment redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- and also imposition of personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- by the Additional Collector vide his impugned order, the appellants have filed their present appeal.2. Factual backdrop : The appellants M/s. Wasan & Co., Agra, a partnership firm engaged inter alia in the manufacture of export of shoe uppers presented three shipping bills bearing Nos. 41278 dated 8-5-1986; 41893 dated 12-5-1986 and 41889 dated 12-5-1986 each for export of 3000 pairs of ladies boot uppers fitted with Polyurethane foam under duty exemption scheme (for short DEEC Scheme) and claiming drawback inter alia declaring on each of the shipping bills : (a) That 923 metres laminated polyurethane foam costing Rs. 27,690 were used in the consignment which was imported vide bill of entry No. 10102 dated 25-2-1...

Orient Paper Mills Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC270Tri(Delhi)

1. The issue for consideration in this appeal is whether the cost of packing of paper by wrapping paper should be included in the assessable value of the paper wrapped.2. The appellants manufacture wrapper which is used in wrapping reams/reels of papers and also for manufacture of reel core on which the paper is wound. At the time of approval of the price list the cost of the duty paid wrapper was included in the assessable value of the paper. The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal of the appellants, against which the appellants preferred a revision application to the Govt. of India. The revision application was transferred to this Tribunal. An application for permission to raise the additional ground of the appellants entitlement to proforma credit on the wrapper paper, based upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Eastend Paper Industries Limited and Orient Paper Mills [Judgments Today 1989 (3) S.C. 518] has been filed before us. The...

Engineering Projects (i) Ltd. Vs. I.D. Ganeriwala

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1990RLR180

Santosh Duggal, J.(1) By this application moved u/Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with section s 151, Civil Procedure Code the petitioner seeks initiation of contempt of court proceedings against the respondent alleging willful disobedience on his part of this Court's order as also abuse of the process of law. (2) The facts which have occasioned filing of this petition are that petitioner herein had filed a petition u/S. 11 of the Arbitration Act seeking removal of the arbitrator to whom the disputes between the parties were referred. After the respondent put in appearance and sought time to file the reply to that petition, he moved an application (I.A. 2919/82) on 13.8 82 praying, inter alia, that appropriate injunction be issued against the petitioners restraining them from encashing the bank guarantees which he had furnished, as per details given in the application, which according to him were furnished either for release of the raw material or by way of secur...

R. Balamma Vs. Delhi Administration and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 40(1990)DLT409

Charanjit Talwar, J.(1) The petitioner, Smt R, Balamma, applied for a flat under the Self Financing Scheme to the Delhi Development Authority on 10th August, 1982 and deposited Rs. 10,000.00 vide challan No. 40090. This application, it appears, was misplaced and she made a fresh application on 23rd May, 1985. It appears that the petitioner came to know that she was being offered a flat in the area of Madipur, in North District. She represented in a public hearing to the Vice Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority on 31st January, 1986 to change the allotment, to South Delhi in lieu of the flat being allotted to her in North Delhi. The Vice Chairman agreed to the request and directed the Delhi Development Authority to allot the petitioner a flat in Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj. New Delhi. A letter dated 6th of June, 1986 to that effect was issued to the petitioner by the Delhi Development Authority. Consequent to that letter, on 16th July, 1986 the petitioner took part in draw of lot a...

Kulshashi Raj and Others Vs. Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authorit ...

Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member: (1) This is an appeal against the orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) dated April 28,1989 in Case No. 1 of 1989. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the appellants S/Sh. Kulshashi Raj and Ajay Kumar had in an open auction held by D.D.A. on 22.5.87 made a bid of Rs. 6,22,000/- for an industrial plot No. A-90 located at Mangolpuri Industrial Area II, measuring 253.5 sq. mts. They deposited Rs. 1,55,500/-, 25% of the bid money, at the fall of the hammer and signed documents setting out the terms and conditions of the plot auctioned by DDA on perpetual lease. The balance amount 75% of the bid money, Rs. 4,66,500/- was to be paid by cash or Demand Draft in favour of DDA within a month of the issue of demand letter by DDA after the confirmation of the bid by the Vice Chairman DDA. (3) The demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the appellants on 9.6.87 and sent by registered post. This registered letter was returned to the D...

Diamond Polymers Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1990)LC355Tri(Delhi)

1. This appeal is directed against the order issued on 18-6-1987 of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay by which he had upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs 'H' Group, Bombay Customs House dated 19-6-1986.2. The facts in brief are that the appellants herein imported a consignment of 8 pairs of two colour moulds of plastic vide Bill of Entry dated 3-3-1986. On examination of a sample of the goods from the imported consignment the Customs House found that though the goods imported will be assessable as moulds falling under Heading 8480 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 yet the Customs House held that the goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification 314/85 on the ground that the moulds had been imported for the manufacture of the shoes which were not made of plastic and that the exemption was available only for moulds imported for the manufacture of artificial plastic articles. The Asstt. Collector's order was upheld by the Collector (Appeals).3. Appearing for...

Pharmed (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2004)(164)ELT361TriDel

1. The issue arising for determination in all these appeals is whether the chemical 'Morphazinamide Hydro-chloride' imported by the appellants was entitled to exemption from additional duty of customs in view of the provisions of Notification 234/82-C.E. dated 1-11-1982 as amended.2. The claims of the appellants for refund of the additional duty of customs did not meet with success at the hands of the lower authorities. Hence these appeals.3. We have heard Shri V.B. Akolkar, Advocate, for the appellants and Shri V. Chandrasekaran, SDR, for the respondent.4. Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 exempts from the levy of excise duty several classes of goods. One such class is : "All bulk drugs, medicines and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified". "In this notification "bulk drugs" means any chemical or biological or plant product, conforming to pharmacopoeial standards, used for the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of diseases in human beings or animals, and as suc...