Delhi Court February 1990 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.
Nagparas International Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC456Tri(Delhi)
1. The issues for determination in this appeal are (a) the correct classification of the imported goods for the purpose of levy of countervailing duty (b) the validity of the import. The appellants' claim that (a) the goods fall for classification under T.1.22(i)(b). The appellants imported a consignment of lining materials (nylon) of 60/61 inches width with 72 deniers of warp and weft and claimed clearance as lining material against a REP import licence issued under Export Product Group 0.1 of the policy for April-March 1983. After issue of show cause notice and adjudication, the Assistant Collector passed an order (a) confiscating the goods under Section III(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine (b) loading the value of the goods (c) levying duty on the coating on the fabrics.3. The lower authorities found that the imports were umbrella cloth (and not lining material) and therefo...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. G. Agarwala and Co.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC101Tri(Delhi)
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants filed one classification list effective from 24-1-1987. At Serial No. 4 of the classification list they mentioned "printing of paper board sheets as per customers size & specifications". They sought classification under Tariff Heading 4901.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as product of printing industry at nil rate of duty. A show cause notice was issued to them on 27-4-1987 proposing to classify the product under Tariff Heading 4818.90 at the rate of 12% ad valorem or under Heading 4818.13 at the rate of 15% ad valorem depending upon from which paper they were manufactured. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellants contended that the said product had to undergo two more operations, viz., cutting and creasing and pasting before it was used as packing cartons. At the time of personal hearing the factory Manager of the appellants stated before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, as it appears from the Assistant...
Collector of Customs Vs. Tata Electronic Development
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC520Tri(Delhi)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, dated 22-5-1989 and the appellant herein is the Collector of Customs, Bangalore. The facts in brief are that the respondents herein M/s. Tata Electronic Dev. Services imported a consignment of Heat Shrinkable Sleeves valued at Rs. 3,19,067/- for which the Bill of Entry was filed in December, 1988 at the Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore. The respondents claimed exemption for the goods under Notification 206/76 against S. No. 5(i) and (ii) as Radar spares and accessories by producing duty exemption certificate from the Ministry of Defence and claimed duty free assessment. It was their claim that the shrinkable sleeves were in 1.2 metres length per piece and were therefore component parts. After hearing them in the matter the Asstt. Collector of Customs Air Cargo Complex held, on examination of the goods, that the heat shrinkable sleeves were found to be in running length and that they were only raw m...
Associated Cylinder Industries Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-21-1990
Reported in: (1990)(48)ELT460TriDel
1(a) Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant is a manufacturer of ISI marked LPG cylinders used for bottling of Liquified Petroleum Gas (cooking gas). The cyclinders manufactured are of different capacities.Cylinders of capacity 15 kg/33.3 litres are manufactured partly out of own raw material and partly on raw material (HR sheets) supplied by customers, 3 public sector oil companies namely, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. exclusively for them.1(b) Learned Counsel further stated that this is a case in which basically two charges had been framed against the appellants, (i) incomplete and improper maintenance of prescribed record and (ii) Clandestine removal of the goods in question.2. They admit the first charge in as much as RG-1 register was not maintained upto date.3. It is, however, their contention that merely because RG-1 register was not maintained upto date it could not be presumed and it could not be conclud...
Praveen Malhotra Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 1990CriLJ2184; 41(1990)DLT418; II(1990)DMC82; 1990(18)DRJ192
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The petitioner, his father, mother and sister arc being prosecuted for offences under sections 498A/302/201/120B IPC. The wife of the petitioner succumbed to burn injuries on April 28, 1989. The father and the mother of the petitioner have been released on bail pursuant to orders 'made by Duggal J. on October 4, 1989 in Cr. M. (M) 1368/89. The sister of the petitioner was enlarged on bail pursuant to the orders of Additional Sessions Judge made on 17th October 1989. The bail application of the petitioner was, however, rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge on 4th January 1990. thereforee, the petitioner filed Cr. M. (Main) 161/90 seeking bail. The application of the petitioner came up for hearing on 25th January 1990 when notice was directed to be issued to the State for 8th February 1990. On 8th February 1990, it was directed that the record of the trial court be summoned and the case was adjourned to today.(2) The present application (Cr. Misc. 309/90) we fa...
N.K. Abdu Salam Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-20-1990
Reported in: 40(1990)DLT513
P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Petitioner has been detained by virtue of an order dated December 9 1988 passed under Section 3(l)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act with a view to prevent- ing him from engaging in transporting smuggled gold. Various grounds have been taken in the petition in challenging the impugned order but it is not necessary to refer to them because this petition is liable to succeed on a necessary very short point. (2) It has been pleaded in Ground No. (II) in the Writ Petition that Material relevant documents i.e. Bail Application dated April 8, 1988, bail order dated 13, 1988 and a petition sent to Collector of Customs by the petitioner after his release on bail, retracting his statement before the customs officials a show cause notice sent by the Collector of Customs and reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner on October 5, 1988 have not been all placed before the defaming authority and thus the subjective ...
U.P. Twiga Fiber Glass Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC368Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeal relates to the eligibility of the appellants' goods for benefit of total exemption from excise duty under Serial No. 10 of Notification 52/86-C.E., dated 10-2-1986 as amended. According to the appellants, the goods manufactured by them are "glass fabrics, other than fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish" falling under Heading 7014, covered by Serial No. 10 of the above notification, while the Department classifies them as "all goods other than the goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish", (falling under Heading 7014) covered by Serial No. 11 and attracting duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem. "(1) Twiga Insul Resin Bonded Glasswool Mat (Glass Fabrics) (Various dimensions). (2) Twiga Insul Resin Bonded Glasswool Mat (Glass fabrics) (Aluminium Facing) (Various dimensions). (7) Twiga Insul Resin Bonded Glasswool Mat (Glass Fabrics) Pipe Section. (8) Twiga Insul Resin Bonded Glasswool Mat (Glass Fabri...
Jagan Nath Dalip Singh Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(47)ELT369TriDel
1. The brief facts of the case are that 97 bags of manufactured tobacco which were found by the Central Excise Officers in the store room and which were found completely stitched in respect of 62 bags and 13 bags stitched but did not bear the stamp of the firm or the name of the firm and 22 bags were still unstitched and without stamp of the firm and therefore, it was held that these bags were kept for removal surreptitiously as it was found that an entry had been made in respect of manufacture of 97 bags in the daily production register and R.G.I register and that as per the earlier entry of manufacture of 97 bags they must have already been removed and the present 97 bags physically available would not be the same as those entered in the R.G.I register.2. The Deputy Collector had come to the conclusion that inasmuch as the serial numbers were entered in the R.G.I register the 97 bags should have already been packed and stitched with the above serial numbers and as the 97 bags were s...
Bajaj Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC274Tri(Delhi)
1. We heard Shri Gopal Prasad, the learned Consultant in support of the appeal. According to him the issue involved in this matter is what should be the value for purposes of assessment of Central Excise duty when out of seven distributors two are alleged to be related persons.Shri Gopal Prasad in this context made the following submissions: (i) Without conceding but assuming that two of the distributors are related persons and the other five distributors are still there and the price at which the goods are sold to them (the same price to the two distributors) is the assessable value. (ii) Merely giving a warranty does not make the distributor a related person of the assessee. (iii) A distributor is not automatically a related person unless he is a relative [Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. and Ors. -1983 (14) ELT 1896 (SC)].2. Shri Gopal Prasad submitted that in his letter dated 28-5-1979 to the Assistant Collector he disclosed the names of all the distribut...
Bombay Dying and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-19-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC144
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay by which he had confirmed the demand of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 2,54,15,846/- as being payable by the appellants. The facts briefly are that the appellants were granted an industrial licence in June, 1981 for setting up a DMT plant. The licence envisaged the purchase of a 2nd hand DMT plant situated in Burlington, New Jersey, USA owned by Her-cofina. On 12-7-1982, the appellants applied to the Bombay Customs House for registration of their Project contract with Hercofina, USA for the import of Second hand DMT plant for assessment under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under Project Import Regulations. Under this Heading in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, all items of machinery, instruments, apparatus and appliances, control gear and transmission equipment, auxiliary equipment or raw materials required for the initial setting up of a unit or the substantial expansion...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »