Delhi Court March 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.
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC247
1. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The said appeal was received in the Registry on 24th May, 1983. In column No. 3 of the memo of appeal, date of communication has been mentioned as 30th December, 1982. With the appeal memo the appellants have filed an application for condonation of delay.2. Shri L.P. Asthana, the learned Senior Departmental Representative who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has pleaded that before the appeal could be filed, the appellant had to ascertain the correct legal position to enable him to file the appeal and the appellant was having correspondence with the lower staff and it took sufficient- ly long time and the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. Shri Asthana, the learned SDR, pleaded that the appellant Was prevented by sufficient cause in the late filing of the appeal. In support of his argument, he has referred to a ...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-29-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC335
1. The issue for determination in this appeal is the classification of the following :- (1) Insulation between water cooled shield and pressure rings, - asbestos packing, asbestos cement, sheets/segments etc.2. The respondents imported the above items & claimed re-assessment under Heading 85.18/27(6) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as the goods are for exclusive use in a particular type of furnace. Benefit of concessional rate of duty of 40% under Notification 172/77 was also claimed. The Assistant Collector classified items 1 and 3 respectively under Heading 68.01/16(1) - "Articles of natural or artificial stones, of agglomerated natural or artificial abrasives, of plastering material, of cement, of concrete, of asbestos, of asbestos-cement or cellulose fibre cement, or of mica; articles of vegetable materials agglomerated with mineral binders; mineral wools; expanded mineral materials; articles of other mineral substances, not elsewhere specified or included (1) Not elsewhere sp...
R. Maganlal and Co. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(29)ECC76
1. This appeal is filed by M/s. R. Maganlal & Co., Bombay against Order-in-Original No. 9/Collr/1989 dated 31-3-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Rajkot.2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the appellants imported at the Port of Kandla a consignment of 212.900 M. Tonnes of "Low Density Polyethylene" ('L.D.P.E'; for short), valued at Rs. 22,52,095.47. According to the narration of facts in the appeal memo, the appellants had no credit facilities with M/s. M.G. Chemical Company Inc. of New York, the suppliers of the goods. So, the goods were ordered through an agent M/s. Dhimeet Ltd., Ontario, who established an irrevocable letter of credit in favour of the supplier company for the supply of 200 M. Tonnes of L.D.P.E. "Natural Virgin manufactured by Dupont packed in 25 kg bags Product Code 0 9952 with Melt Index from 3.0 to 5.5 Density 0.922/993". However, when the documents were received through the banker, the appellants found the descripti...
Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Insulated Conductors Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)LC461Tri(Delhi)
1. The respondents are not present but by a letter dated 13-3-1990 they sought a decision on merits. We therefore heard Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR, perused the papers and proceed to pass the following order.2. The question involved is simple; it is whether paper covered copper strips and fibre glass copper strips are goods of the same class within the meaning of Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector held that they are not goods of same class. From his order, it appears that he rejected the refund claim of the respondents interpreting the Rule 173L to mean that the goods received in the factory and cleared after remaking should be the same goods.3. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the respondents' appeal holding that the goods received and the goods cleared fall in the same Tariff Item and therefore the provisions of Rule 173L were satisfied. As result he directed that the remaining amount of refund (Around Rs. 1200/-) should be sanctioned.4. Smt. Zutshi, learned SDR ...
interarch Building Products (P) Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC337Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd., NOIDA have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s.Interarch Building Products (P) Ltd. are alleged to be manufacturers of aluminium building products. Preventive Officers under the supervision of Superintendent, Central Excise, Ghaziabad visited the factory on 17th October, 1985 and seized the goods worth Rs. 11,59,524.05 and booked an offence case for the clearances already effected from the factory in a manner other than as provided in the Central Excise Rules and the total duty involved was Rs. 8,18,794.23. A show cause notice dated 18th March, 1987 was issued to the appellants answerable to the Collector of Central Excise. The appellant was charged for contravention of the provisions of Rule 174 read with Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Rule 173B, 173C, 173F and 173G read with Rules 52A, 9(1) and 173Q of the Centra...
National Rayon Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC163
1. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate while arguing the case has stated that the appellants had imported Isolating valves which should be classified under Customs Tariff 84.61(2) as 'Isolating valves' but the Department had assessed the same under Heading C.T.A., 84.61(1) as "not elsewhere specified". That the Asstt. Collector had in his order stated that the catalogue showed them as 'Hopkinson Ferranti Stop Valves made of Iron & Steel' and had confirmed the original order of assessment in the Bill of Entry and also the Collector (Appeals) had upheld the order of the Asstt. Collector stating that as per the import invoice the goods had been described as "Hopkinsons Parallel Slide Valve" and that the appellants had not produced any evidence to prove that the impugned goods are Isolating valves, and had therefore, rejected the same.2. Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate during his submissions stated that the appellants had imported Stop valves and he produced a catalogue with the drawing...
Shree Suryodaya Industries Vs. Collector of Central Excise
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(30)LC218Tri(Delhi)
1. in all these six appeals, notice of hearing fixed for 22 3.1990 was issued to the appellants by registered post with Acknowledgement Due.Except in the case of Appeal No. ED/SB/T/370/82-A, in all other five cases, the appellants have requested that their appeals may be decided on merits in their absence. Although no such request is on record placed before us in respect of Appeal No. ED/SB/T/370/82-A, hearing notice was issued in that case on 1.3.1990 by registered post with Acknowledgement Due. There is no request on record for adjournment of the hearing of this case Since the issue involved in all the six appeals is identical, and in five matters the appellants have specifically requested for a decision on merits in their absence, we have heard the learned SDR in all the six appeals for taking a decision. We have also gone through the records of the case in each appeal.2. In all six cases, the appellants claimed refund of Central Excise duty on the ground that duty was not payable ...
Collector of Customs Vs. Blue Star Ltd.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC155
1. Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, had issued a review show cause notice to M/s. Blue Star Ltd. in terms of provisions of erstwhile Sub-section (3) of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962. In terms of provisions of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, the said show cause notices are to be treated as appeals.2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents, M/s. Blue Star Ltd. had imported Brinell-cum-Vickers Hardness Testing Machine and had claimed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated Ist March, 1978 and had claimed the assessment of duty at the rate of 25% + 5% + 8% CVD. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the benefit of serial No. 7 of exemption Notification No. 49/78-Cus., dated Ist March, 1978 was only available in respect of Vickers Testing Machine and not for the Brinell-cum-Vickers Hardness testing machine and had rejected the claim of the respondents.3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, t...
D and H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: (1990)(27)ECC286
1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of what is called by them to be Filler Wire. They receive stainless steel wires in coil form. In their factory, they undertake the processes of straightening the said wires and cutting them into required sizes. For this processing, the stainless steel wires pass through a rotor, rotating at high speed and having 8 dies and thereby the wires get straightened to a very close accuracy. These wires then go to the cutting section of the machine where it is cut to pre-determined sizes. The appellants did not obtain a Central Excise licence for these processes and cleared the "Filler Wire" from their factory without payment of Central Excise duty. A show cause notice was, therefore, issued to them by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-IV, Indore on 3-8-83 for confiscation of the seized filler wire valued at Rs. 3,500/-, imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and for recovering ...
Jagjit Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-28-1990
Reported in: 41(1990)DLT436; 1990(19)DRJ3
M.K. Chawla, J. (1) By order dated 22-8-83, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, framed a charge against the accused Jagjit Singh alias Jaggi and Brij Mohan u/s. 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of Mohan Singh in furtherance of their common intention at about 1 .M. on the night between 27th and 28th of February. 1983 at G.B Road. Delhi. Accused Jagjit Singh was further charged for the offence punishable u/s. 27 or the Indian Arms Act for having been found in possession of a knife which he used for unlawful purposes.(2) After trial, accused Brij Mohan was let off by giving him benefit of doubt as one of the eye-witnesses (Public Witness -4) Ramesh Kumar failed to identify him, even though Public Witness -2 Kishan Singh and Public Witness -3 Manjit Singh identified him to be the person who had held the deceased from behind while accused Jagjit Singh stabbed him. On the same set of evidence, Jagjit Singh was convicted of the offences char...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »